Here’s what I have to say. Even if every detail provided by this discord guy is correct, it’s still a flawed argument in the sense that it’s holding the definition of EF5 damage to an unreasonable standard. No, I’m not just saying that because of my own opinion; I am also saying this because this sentiment is shared by people like Tony Lyza and Jim LaDue. Toward the end of LaDue’s recent video presentation, he specifically stated that a house does not have to be a fortress to earn an EF5 rating, and specifically instructed surveyors to not play it overly conservative. In addition, LaDue addresses (albeit not very boldly or clearly) the overall phenomenon of higher ratings decreasing in recent years, what can be done to address that, and subsequently provides examples of DIs that should have been rated higher. In that presentation, LaDue even provided a potential scenario allowing for an EF5 rating in which a house has been swept from its floor diaphragm/subfloor.
While I do acknowledge that things like garage door orientation and house design (overhangs/recesses/etc) play a role in how a house fails, the rest of the rationale being used in an attempt to prop up the EF4 rating of the Wicker Street home is goes against the sentiment LaDue was clearly trying to get across in his most recent presentation. If a person really wanted to, they could easily point out any number of “weak points” in a house that has been removed from its subfloor, even with external sheathing and toe-nailing present. Do you really think the person trying to rationalize the Vilonia home’s rating would even consider a bare floor diaphragm for an EF5 rating given the level of scrutiny they are operating with? Of course not. Yet LaDue provides a set of circumstances where EF5 can be applied in that scenario. Another example, going all the way back to Moore 2013, if LaDue wanted to downgrade those first EF5 homes to EF4 because the sweep wasn’t clean enough, he could have. If he wanted to downgrade the EF5 homes near Moore Medical Center to EF4 citing excessive dwell time caused by the loop in the path, he could have. But he didn’t. Why? Because that’s losing the plot and would serve no purpose in terms of establishing an accurate rating. So back to the Wicker Street home; can you nit-pick your way down until the rating “fits?” Sure. But just because you can, doesn’t mean that you should, and it sure as hell doesn’t mean your takeaway would be a more accurate representation of the Vilonia tornado’s true intensity. That’s not even bringing the fertilizer tank, Fish Hooks Restaurant, and other EF5 candidate homes mysteriously missing from the survey into the equation.
Essentially, if LaDue puts out a presentation pertaining to the current application of the EF scale, addresses the underrating of tornadoes and the decrease in higher ratings that was the focus of Tony Lyza’s paper, and lays out a less stringent approach that doesn’t hold EF5 house damage to absurdly conservative standards, to the point where bare subfloors are “fair game” in some scenarios, I’m going to put a little more stock in that standard versus one provided by some guy on discord trying to rationalize a botched, half-baked survey from 2014 that used incredibly questionable rationale. While I understand the beauty of scientific proof, and get the importance of factoring in whatever available construction information is at hand, if the goal is really about establishing ratings that accurately reflect tornado intensity, people need to know where the line between being analytical and being pedantic lies. If you can’t tell where that line is, you lose the plot and the concept of what “could” be used to rationalize a lower rating begins to take precedence at the expense of what is likely accurate. That’s what led to the EF5 drought, and that’s why people like Lyza and LaDue are finally taking a critical look at that mindset and approach.
In a nutshell, the over-analysis of the Wicker Street home is exactly that: over-analysis. It loses the plot and crosses the line between reasonable deductions, and being overly pedantic. Just because someone created a list of “here’s why”, doesn’t make that list reasonable or helpful in the context of determining an appropriate rating.
The one thing taking that approach will help you with however, is earning brownie points from certain parties, and demonstrating that you’re willing to tow the line. Make of that what you will.
