WeathermanLeprechaun
Member
My bad! I knew it was too goodness to be new but was just unsure. Anyways, it's still intense footage of Tuscaloosa. My apologies
-
Welcome to TalkWeather! We see you lurking around TalkWeather! Take the extra step and join us today to view attachments, see less ads and maybe even join the discussion. CLICK TO JOIN TALKWEATHER -
Current Tropical Systems Melissa
Significant Tornado Events
- Thread starter locomusic01
- Start date
My bad! I knew it was too goodness to be new but was just unsure. Anyways, it's still intense footage of Tuscaloosa. My apologies
These images are almost like ragebait. That EF4 rating was deliberate, and purely due to hubris and arrogance of John Robinson. What a piece of work he was.EF5 damage in Vilonia.
The remains of Wade Lentz's family home and vehicles:
Ground scouring:
Ivanthetornadoenthusiast
Member
If i remember correctly, there is other reasons why that Wicker Street home didn't get rated as EF5. The reasons being the construction of the home.
Ivanthetornadoenthusiast
Member
Problems with the Vilonia 190 DI:
- Windward facing garage door (on CMU blocks)
- Garage section featured a gable-end roof
- Large overhanging porch directly facing wind
- At initial failure point (front wall of house), the windload was not transferred to the bolts, but rather the sill plates. (Evident by every sill plate remaining on the front wall, except for where the door was since no bolt was present)
- Straight nailed studs (Which may not be an issue if the windload is able to transfer to the bolts, which they did not in this case)
- Some bolts placed too close to edge of the foundation (Allows foundation to crack and bolts are able to experience a lower windload before failing)
- Additionally, every sill plate on the east wall of the house remained (Not directly windward, but partially)
The structure had a design with multiple weak points present in both the garage section of the house and the main home section with the overhanging porch. The primary failure of the structure occured at straight nailed sill plate connections where sill plates shattered from stress before transferring the windload to the anchor bolts (anchor bolts did not fail in any windward or partially windward wall). Roof-to-wall connections are inferred to be nails as no evidence supports hurricane clips being used, this is in accordance with local codes (Not an ASCE Hurricane Zone). As well as some bolts placed too close to the edge of foundation.
As per Moore 2013 survey definitions, this home does not meet EF5 qualifcations.
- Swept foundation (Present)
- Foundation to base plate connections were bolts with properly tightened nuts and washers (Present)
- Removal of large percentage of the base plates from the foundation (Not Present)
- Some anchor bolts were bent (Not present, only one visible bent bolt which was placed too close to the edge of the foundation)
This home may have gotten EF5 if the following were present:
- Hip-shaped roof
- Toenailed/bracket stud connections
These are from Saltical on Discord.
- Windward facing garage door (on CMU blocks)
- Garage section featured a gable-end roof
- Large overhanging porch directly facing wind
- At initial failure point (front wall of house), the windload was not transferred to the bolts, but rather the sill plates. (Evident by every sill plate remaining on the front wall, except for where the door was since no bolt was present)
- Straight nailed studs (Which may not be an issue if the windload is able to transfer to the bolts, which they did not in this case)
- Some bolts placed too close to edge of the foundation (Allows foundation to crack and bolts are able to experience a lower windload before failing)
- Additionally, every sill plate on the east wall of the house remained (Not directly windward, but partially)
The structure had a design with multiple weak points present in both the garage section of the house and the main home section with the overhanging porch. The primary failure of the structure occured at straight nailed sill plate connections where sill plates shattered from stress before transferring the windload to the anchor bolts (anchor bolts did not fail in any windward or partially windward wall). Roof-to-wall connections are inferred to be nails as no evidence supports hurricane clips being used, this is in accordance with local codes (Not an ASCE Hurricane Zone). As well as some bolts placed too close to the edge of foundation.
As per Moore 2013 survey definitions, this home does not meet EF5 qualifcations.
- Swept foundation (Present)
- Foundation to base plate connections were bolts with properly tightened nuts and washers (Present)
- Removal of large percentage of the base plates from the foundation (Not Present)
- Some anchor bolts were bent (Not present, only one visible bent bolt which was placed too close to the edge of the foundation)
This home may have gotten EF5 if the following were present:
- Hip-shaped roof
- Toenailed/bracket stud connections
These are from Saltical on Discord.
- Messages
- 4,598
- Reaction score
- 9,470
- Location
- California, United States
- Special Affiliations
- SKYWARN® Volunteer
I don't know who "Saltical" is, but they just lost all credibility for me.
I am so utterly sick and tired of all the mental gymnastics people try to use to defend Vilonia's EF4 rating. This basically boils down to "they're the experts, this is why".
NONE of those points were ever considered during the survey. This is what the DAT says:
"additional structure strengthening mechanisms from sill plate to straight-nailed wall studs were unknown at time of survey."
"Ratings are not normally assinged [sic - good job Robinson!] based on one only structure"
"the house was hit by the debris from the downtown buildings so there was uncertainty as to how much damage was done by the tornado itself vs. flying debris"
"some trees (tall and skinny) were still standing along a ditch about 100 yards away."
Nothing about a windward facing garage door, a gable-end roof, or bolts being placed too close to the edge of the foundation.
But let's say all of that is true... oh, the house wasn't built PERFECTLY? The roof wasn't a hipped design, it had a garage door, and some of the bolts were 'too close to the edge of the foundation'? This mentality is why the EF5 drought happened in the first place. Most homes in the US are already poorly built to begin with. Vilonia caused incredible contextual damage, AND encountered a home that was anchor bolted to a poured concrete foundation. Both of those boxes were checked, yet it didn't get rated EF5. That's a problem.
I'm not even going to mention the 40+ homes that just flat out weren't surveyed.
End of rant.
Kds86z
Member
AJS
Member
I honestly refuse to call Vilonia an EF4 anymore. It was an EF5. Plain and simple.
Agree with everything you said.
Re: Saltical. He’s the person that claims the 2023 Robinson IL tornado was more powerful than Smithville because his totally non-public and non-peer reviewed “cycloidal calculation” said so.
I’m starting to think Wx Discord is as bad, if not worse, than WxTwitter
Union
Member
Vilonia is an EF5 tornado but the point about the construction quality IS how the scale works, the house wasn't built to the best level, a little below EXP class, the border for EF5 is for the highest end houses for a reason and the points made in Saltical's post (who btw is working on a full real 7000+ word paper about calculating cycloidal marks from tornadoes to derive ground level windspeeds in all cases of strength at USC) are real and correct, it doesn't mean they were the only reasons the house didn't get it, the DAT mentions 3 other things, all of them are stupid reasons, but construction quality of homes is the one consistent thing of the scale in this case and to say that the EF5 drought only existed because they were following the guidelines of the scale doesn't make sense to me? Houses don't even have to be perfect for EF5, if they were perfect they'd be 220mph, they just have to be above normal, 1mph above EXP, little tighter spacing on bolts, or toenailing or no garage or a good roof shape and connections, any one of those can push an EXP house over to EF5 and this house just wasn't EXP, but the external reasoning about trees and debris is stupid.
The issues with the 190 home are extremely important to factor however. And I agree with the EF4 rating for the home itself, even though I feel like more contextual support should be taken into account as Vilonia 100% was EF5 intensity and deserved it. It would be one of those tornadoes that would have been rated F5 on the F scale. This actually why I support Enderlin's rating, as it shows more leniency and consideration for non standard dis.
Ivanthetornadoenthusiast
Member
Saltical never said that Robinson was stronger than Smithville
Central Ohio Wx
Member
You put the nail on the head. Vilonia was an EF5, it’s just that completely ignoring construction flaws is just as bad as hyper-focusing on them.
Not sure that all the Saltical dirt is about, weren’t we making our own conclusions on the intensity of Grinnell based solely on a few images just a few months ago?
The edit here was me drafting something up and it seems I forgot to remove it as I’ve changed my mind since drafting it.
Well, whoever was on here parroting his “formula” worded it that way.
WeathermanLeprechaun
Member
I can't agree more. Saltical is more well versed in cyclodial marks which is his main AOI, and while he makes fair points here, the EF scale is incredibly strict and doesn't fit Vilonia's justified rating whatsoever. There are barely any houses built to top end construction like the EF scale requires. Even if a house of that construction was hit, it's also dependant on contextuals.
The EF scale is meant to depict tornado intensity when it doesn't. The so called intensity of the tornado is dependant on the house with the highest wind resistance. That is a very flawed way of depicting tornado intensity. No house in Vilonia would be able to withstand what was a incredibly violent tornado. Vilonia is a EF5 for me based off contextuals and I've looked at contextuals as the most reliable way to look at things.
Saltical stirred up stuff about Robinson 2023 with that 250+ cycloidal mark, and while his method is right on Enderlin, he tends to discover interesting theories such as smithville being two tornadoes a bit to confidently. I respect his work and am happy he's found his place in meteorology, but some of his claims falsely stir general opinion on Twitter a lot for me
- Messages
- 4,598
- Reaction score
- 9,470
- Location
- California, United States
- Special Affiliations
- SKYWARN® Volunteer
I get what you're saying, but reserving EF5 ratings for 'the highest end houses' doesn't sit well with me. Because if that was the case, then there's ZERO chance tornadoes like Hackleburg, Rainsville and Joplin would have gotten the rating.
If you already have a house that is anchor bolted to a poured concrete foundation, and the contextual damage supports an EF5 rating, it should be rated EF5. Period. Unless there is a truly fatal construction flaw like a lack of interior walls (Chastain Manor clubhouse in Tuscaloosa) or a lack of external sheathing (Bassfield cabin). Plus, the home in Vilonia had its exterior AND interior walls bolted down. That is rare to see, and should have been enough to push it to 'just above normal'.
Construction flaws are important to look at, and I never said otherwise.
And I mean this in the nicest possible way, but weren't you the one who said "I take TornadoTalk with a grain of salt" because of their image sharing controversy (which WAS a bad look for them, I'll concede) when they have a full team of researchers including at least one actual meteorologist behind their peer-reviewed work, but don't seem to question anything from a random discord user named "Saltical"? It seems like a double standard to me, no offense.
Union
Member
The standard for an EF5 house hasn't changed since 2013, Moore even set the standard higher, the engineers found that houses under their "expected" bound are just under EF5, that's been the same for nearly 20 years. It's not a fault of the scale it's a fault of the construction in the USA, I do think contextual damage in accordance with a house around 190 or higher should be considered for EF5 but that's just my opinion. Rainsville was a similar situation to this, no house in that path was anywhere near the EF5 threshold, Hackleburg and Joplin both had homes that were above average resistance; Hackleburg's Oak Grove home is a bit more mysterious in terms of what's known about it but by what's known it's significantly better than Vilonia's, Marshall also found plenty of EF5 homes in Joplin and he's THE man, just not a ton of detail on them. Vilonia's house had ZERO attributes that are apart of a UB house and straight nailing is probably the biggest perpetrator.
Also, TornadoTalk does have a reputation of kinda playing up stuff that's really not too insane, at least once you get to the EF4/5 stretch. Saltical is trying to get his stuff peer reviewed and is barely in college, but all of his current stuff is backed up by THE EF scale, 158mph cycloids on top of a 158DI in Lincoln is the best example, it's not a double standard.
Also, he never said Robinson is stronger than Smithville and can we stop using 250mph as what he said, that's multiple months up to a year outdated and him and his math along with every other cycloidal math in history evolves quickly, his last number on Robinson was more align with like 220, which is more than reasonable in my opinion and has no reason being something ppl shade him over for no reason.
Weren’t you the same one that was in full conspiracy mode post Enderlin EF5? Saying the weather enterprise was sweeping problems with the calculations under the rug?
So it’s totally okay to trust this random Saltical guy, who is apparently some quasi discord celebrity and according to some of you on here beyond reproach, but Enderlin EF5’s calculations by multiple professionals is a questionable conspiracy? I know Saltical is part of the “cool kids Nick Kraz” club, but until he actually publishes a peer reviewed article that is accepted at large by the scientific community, it’s just a hobbyist’s theory. I’m really not trying to be harsh here, but the constant shade being thrown at tornadotalk by you all is bullsh*t. It’s the same group doing it.
The issue is, post 3/14/25, this site saw a huge influx of Discord/Reddit users. Some of them have been awesome contributors.. others contribute absolutely nothing of note but sure aren’t lacking in the arrogance department.
Last edited:
Union
Member
I guess you didn't read my messages, I said my wording was wrong lmao, all I said was Enderlin had real problems with it's calculation that SHOULDN'T be swept under the rug, idk how that means I have a conspiracy but whatever sounds good to u, if you trust math so much then you trust Saltical based on literally everything he's put out, real peer reviewed studies support him too so gotta pick one at some point.
Sure, guy. Again, when his theory gets mainstream acceptance by the meteorological community at large, I’ll give it a thumbs up. You also don’t need to carry his water for him, if his theory is a good as you all drone on about, then I’m sure we will see it in the next monthly AMS papers.
- Messages
- 4,598
- Reaction score
- 9,470
- Location
- California, United States
- Special Affiliations
- SKYWARN® Volunteer
You're correct about Tim Marshall and Joplin! I'm not trying to dispute his findings there.
But by the same logic you're using to downgrade Vilonia's Wicker St home, the homes in Hackleburg and Joplin wouldn't make the cut either. The Oak Grove mansion was partially on a concrete block foundation. And all of the EF5 homes in Joplin were either swept off their subfloors or had straight nailed studs. So if you're going to downgrade the Vilonia home for those reasons, Hackleburg and Joplin would have to be downgraded too.
Also, having both exterior AND interior walls bolted down isn't an attribute of a UB home? Even the EF5 homes in Moore didn't have that.
And, okay... this Saltical guy 'calculated' 158mph cycloids on top of a 158mph DI. Did he provide ANY insight to how he ascertained those bogus 'calculations'? He could have literally just said 'these marks were indicative of 158mph winds cause a nearby DI said so'. Until his stuff gets peer reviewed, or he AT LEAST provides some insight into his so-called method, I have to call it out as bogus.