It's really just a one way street. If a tornado is capable of doing ef5 damage, it's an ef5 tornado. The only issue is that some tornados that are capable of it, don't do ef5 damage because they don't impact areas that ef4 or ef3 tornados can't destroy.
So basically, every tornado rated ef5 is an ef5.
There are a number of F5 tornadoes that did not actually do F5/EF5 damage and were rated the way they were do to poor quality surveys. Grazulis downgraded a number of tornadoes in his historical reviews, and if we were to use the EF scale + use the context of structural integrity, then even more would've been downgraded.
More controversially, there is at least one EF5 tornado that may have been EF4 (Joplin), and one very prominent F5 tornado (Jarrell) that hasn't been downgraded but has been challenged as potentially F3 strength.
The EF scale does use the context of structural integrity??? It's based on "estimated wind speeds and related damage."
El Reno in 2013 had wind speeds recorded over 300mph, but due to lack of substantial or reinforced structures, it was rated an ef3.
One of the tornados in Tennessee in the 2011 super outbreak was able to be rated an ef5 due to the damage done to a John Deere Facility, despite the lack of well recorded wind speeds or damage elsewhere on the tornado's path.
Addressing your claims about controversial ratings,
both Joplin and Jarrell had extremely extensive documentation on the damage caused, including the complete sweeping away of well-built houses. This documented damage directly contributed to the ratings of ef5 and f5.
>The EF scale does use the context of structural integrity??? It's based on "estimated wind speeds and related damage
Yes but there is a range of expected wind speeds for each indicator, and structural engineers can examine the damage to determine where in the range the damage lies. A house that is swept away off the slab is the highest DI for one or two family residence, but if that house had no anchor bolts or sill place, then it's an EF3 damage indicator.
The point is that older tornadoes, particularly those with the F scale, did not receive such scrutiny, and likely were rated higher than they should have been.
>Addressing your claims about controversial ratings,
both Joplin and Jarrell had extremely extensive documentation on the damage caused, including the complete sweeping away of well-built houses. This documented damage directly contributed to the ratings of ef5 and f5.
A later analysis of the Joplin damage path failed to discover any EF5 damage indicators, and there is a paper out there that claims in detail that the damage done in Jarrel could've been done by an F3 strength tornado due to poor construction quality and its slow forward speed.
Jarrell’s F5 rating shouldn’t be challenged. With how it completely swept away houses and how much ground scouring it produced, it makes sense how it was rated that way. Granted, I don’t know the strength of the houses it swept away, but the ground scouring is also evidence that it was likely EF5 strength.
I’m guessing because it stood still they’re thinking if it wouldn’t have it wouldn’t have done the damage it did, but honestly that shouldn’t matter. A paused tornado over a populated area is still an extremely dangerous tornado.
Also look at the debris granulation.empty foundations besides small dust and wood chips. Fargo was also slow moving but it didnt granulate debris like this.
This thread would have been a lot more fun if Xenia had stayed as an F6. As someone else said, a lot of F5 (pre-EF) tornadoes would likely have been downgraded based on building construction. Not specifically from an F rating perspective, but Grazulis points to the Pampa, TX F4 as one of the strongest tornadoes ever, but nothing I've seen puts it into the realm of Moore/El Reno/Joplin/etc,
They only assign ef5 when they are certain it did ef5 damage. Probably should put one and one together on that? The controversy is they under rate tornadoes. Why would that controversy exist if they were assigning the highest rating when it wasn't needed?
First of all, I put in the title "EF5/F5", which means that I'm also asking if there were F5 tornadoes in the original Fujita Scale that might've been weaker than the original teams sent to investigate the damage claim.
If you want you could point out an F5 tornado that would've been an EF4 today.
I know that there are problems with underrating tornadoes, I literally posted that question a few weeks ago.
If this topic really interests you then maybe Thomas Grazulis's work would interest you, he wrote a book called significant tornadoes that goes into as much detail as possible about all possible and confirmed f4-f5 tornadoes and his opinions on the ratings.
Look homie idk if this question really has a good answer. There may be a few fringe choices but the f scale and ef scale don't function the same, so asking which ones didn't deserve their rating doesn't make sense. The tornadoes that got rated f5 got rated off of that scale, and tornadoes that got ef5 were rated of that scale. If you phrased the question "which f5 tornado would not get ef5 today" that would be a better question, although I doubt you would get many good answers since the level of construction weren't always detailed in damage reports in older tornadoes.
First of all, Jesus Christ you're picky.
There's multiple ways to answer the questions and I'd be fine with anyone of them:
1. Which F5's would not be an EF5(which you referred to)?
2. Which F5's either from the past or in the 90s should be rated as an F4 or below due to faulty damage surveys?
3. Which EF5's could be rated as an EF4 due to the stringency of the EF scale?
If you answered any of these 3 versions of the original open-ended question it'd be fine, but no you had to get defensive in your response and act like my question isn't even answerable rather than try to adapt and answer the question in the way you know how.
Listen even the Joplin and Moore tornado had some controversy over whether or not they actually deserved an EF5 rating rather than just getting a high-end EF4, so while the controversy of underrating a tornado is bigger, there is still some discussion going the other way
That's a fair point, though I think the controversy for the most part has been cleared up with both after further breakdowns of the damage. I'm not trying to talk down to you or anything so I apologize if my comments came across that way, was just saying the way I see it personally. I don't think you deserved to get downvoted either, discussion of differing points is even more important than everyone nodding heads in agreement.
The Joplin tornado’s EF5 rating is actually a bit contentious, as some survey crews couldn’t find any EF5 damage and felt EF4 was much more accurate.
I don’t think it’s very likely that there wasn’t an ounce of EF5 damage, those crews probably just missed the right evidence. Still, it’s a good reminder that the rating is based on the maximum damage observed, not average. The vast majority of damage to the town of Joplin was in the EF3 to low EF4 range.
Idk exactly but I do know that it's easier to do that to large structures like hospitals and apartment buildings. More surface area makes it easier for it to get got by the wind
Not saying the damage to the hospital can’t count as EF5 damage, but it’s a bit disingenuous to say it was “torn off its foundation”. The structure was compromised, but the hospital was very much so standing after the storm. A large EF4 tornado could absolutely do the same.
Copy pasted from the official report: ["and the fact the St. John’s hospital building structure and foundation were compromised and will need to be torn down, were probably caused by winds speed at or exceeding 200 mph."](https://web.archive.org/web/20120302154024/http://www.crh.noaa.gov/sgf/?n=event_2011may22_survey)
This, under the new EF scale, designates it an EF5. This thread inspired me to compare the two scales and I knew they adjusted the wind speeds, but not to the degree they actually did it. EF5 is 200+ when the original Fujita Scale was 261-318. I feel like I saw this similar discussion recently as it pertains to El Reno as it spent a great deal of its time in open country. Conscientious objectors are fixated on the immediate size and appearance of a tornado in the moment and assume “oh that’s an F-5!” It’s reckless to do that. I could be wrong but I think El Renounce wound up being an EF3 when you account for max wind speed and the type of damage it did. On the surface, people know it was over two miles wide and want to wish it to be an F-5.
This stuff has always been fascinating to me, but admittedly, my knowledge is still kinda pedestrian.
When I think of tornadoes that shouldent have been giving the F5 rating I look at some of the tornadoes from the 1974 super outbreak. I think a large majority of which were a little over rated by one level.
F5 tornado in Germany from 1764. They sent a guy to examine the damage, which was kind of unusual for the time. The tornado might have done a lot of damage, but was it really F5 damage?
Well, he did a detailed report, and it's not like he was the one that decided it was F5, because the scale didn't exist yet. If modern people reading the report decided it was F5, then it most likely was.
Has anyone actually seen the full report though? I’ve looked for it and never found it. Any retelling of the story simply stated the report found “incredible damage” at the mansion, without really detailing what that meant other than oak trees ripped from the ground.
Not sure if this is what you're looking for, [but here are translations of several recent and ancient accounts](https://www.reddit.com/r/tornado/comments/13o00b7/english_translation_for_gottlob_burchard_genzmer) from last year.
Yo people in this comment chain downvoting for stating truths and asking questions. Downvotes are for comments that don't contribute to the discussion, quit using them as "I don't like what they said" button.
Not true. Many modern homes are built less structurally sound than old ones.
Edit: for the downvoters, [Woldegk was a fortified town with ramparts and moats](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woldegk)
[The tornado destroyed a well built mansion](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1764_Woldegk_tornado)
It’s frustrating that some people are downvoting you. I think some people are uncomfortable that we as a modern society build droves of potentially subpar homes in areas frequented by violent tornadoes. But denying reality is not going to accomplish anything good.
It’s more like the arrogance of thinking our current society is “the best”. You also see people that think current society is more intelligent than past peoples because *some* individuals in our society do great things. They ignore that older societies had significantly less resources. Like education. Older societies did amazing things with considerably less resources.
I also see people downvoting something they disagree with. They want their opinion to be validated. That had no place in a scientific discussion. Suppressing counterpoints is intellectual dishonesty.
I agree. I think that, especially in regards to older societies, many people were quite observant of their environment and learned a lot that way (though it also encompasses deceptive observations and wrong assumptions). In part, it was necessary for survival.
For tornadoes, in particular, I see a lot in Internet forums of disbelief that other times or other countries may have - in some types of housing - sturdier construction practices. It is that dangerous assumption that one’s own modern society is the most advanced stage in a linear evolution of practices. But in some categories, it demonstrably is not and when people don’t want to listen to contrary evidence, that causes problems.
There is old and then there is very old. The Tri-State Tornado wasn't the deadliest just because of a lack of forecasting. Same with the Galveston 1900 hurricane.
I grew up in a time of no warnings. No sirens until I was around 10. You had to rely on your knowledge of the weather. That didn’t help if you were asleep. Warnings have made a huge difference.
But I find it ironic that current poor build quality is one of the main reasons we can’t declare some tornados an F5. Yet all of a sudden these poor build quality homes are better than some of the older ones with good foundations.
Some of those very old homes are very old **because** of their excellent build quality. Have you seen some of those German homes? Huge timbers, extensive foundation etc.
I stand by my assertion. Older isn’t necessarily weaker.
Edit: as far as the Galveston hurricane goes, I’d suggest you read [Isaacs Storm](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Isaacs-Storm-Deadliest-Hurricane-History/dp/0609602330). They were **not allowed** to warn people with the term “hurricane”.
I'm not an architect but I don't think it's weird to assume an average home from 250+ years ago was more vulnerable than an average modern home, even in Germany. If you had a great foundation in any 100+ year home you were probably fairly wealthy.
Incorrect assumption. You had multigenerational households living under one roof. A lot of the architecture was medieval.
[Woldegk](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woldegk) was a fortified town with ramparts and moats.
I think the issue with Joplin is because when it hit the city it was an F3 and then it intensified to an F4 then and F5 so it was really hard to probably differentiate between damage due to the fact it intensified when it was on its rampage.
Vilonia Arkansas really should’ve been an ef5. It swept well built homes clean off their foundation and Arguably the Louisville ef4 from the same day also had ef5 intensity. Mayfield Kentucky was no doubt ef5. Rolling fork was close, I can talk about this topic for hours. Anyone else wanna chime in on potential ef5 candidates?
Elie F5 was not even close to as powerful as Rochelle, Mayfield, and dozens of others EF4s over the last 10 years.
It was rated a F5 a week after the event because of one grainy video taken miles away of a single house. From my knowledge the original damage assessors didn’t even give it a F5 until that random video surfaced which is crazy considering the DI’s of some EF4’s that also have videos showing entire towns being devastated
It did damage on one house for 2 seconds that Mayfield, Rochelle, etc did for 30 minutes straight on dozens of buildings/entire towns.
They aren’t even in the same category of strength
I mean it doesn’t really matter the duration of the strength. That’s like saying a EF2 that was on the ground for a minute is weaker than an EF1 that was on the ground for 20 minutes. But I do agree that Mayfield and Rochelle probably had wind speeds over 200 mph.
It's really just a one way street. If a tornado is capable of doing ef5 damage, it's an ef5 tornado. The only issue is that some tornados that are capable of it, don't do ef5 damage because they don't impact areas that ef4 or ef3 tornados can't destroy. So basically, every tornado rated ef5 is an ef5.
There are a number of F5 tornadoes that did not actually do F5/EF5 damage and were rated the way they were do to poor quality surveys. Grazulis downgraded a number of tornadoes in his historical reviews, and if we were to use the EF scale + use the context of structural integrity, then even more would've been downgraded. More controversially, there is at least one EF5 tornado that may have been EF4 (Joplin), and one very prominent F5 tornado (Jarrell) that hasn't been downgraded but has been challenged as potentially F3 strength.
The EF scale does use the context of structural integrity??? It's based on "estimated wind speeds and related damage." El Reno in 2013 had wind speeds recorded over 300mph, but due to lack of substantial or reinforced structures, it was rated an ef3. One of the tornados in Tennessee in the 2011 super outbreak was able to be rated an ef5 due to the damage done to a John Deere Facility, despite the lack of well recorded wind speeds or damage elsewhere on the tornado's path. Addressing your claims about controversial ratings, both Joplin and Jarrell had extremely extensive documentation on the damage caused, including the complete sweeping away of well-built houses. This documented damage directly contributed to the ratings of ef5 and f5.
>The EF scale does use the context of structural integrity??? It's based on "estimated wind speeds and related damage Yes but there is a range of expected wind speeds for each indicator, and structural engineers can examine the damage to determine where in the range the damage lies. A house that is swept away off the slab is the highest DI for one or two family residence, but if that house had no anchor bolts or sill place, then it's an EF3 damage indicator. The point is that older tornadoes, particularly those with the F scale, did not receive such scrutiny, and likely were rated higher than they should have been. >Addressing your claims about controversial ratings, both Joplin and Jarrell had extremely extensive documentation on the damage caused, including the complete sweeping away of well-built houses. This documented damage directly contributed to the ratings of ef5 and f5. A later analysis of the Joplin damage path failed to discover any EF5 damage indicators, and there is a paper out there that claims in detail that the damage done in Jarrel could've been done by an F3 strength tornado due to poor construction quality and its slow forward speed.
Jarrell’s F5 rating shouldn’t be challenged. With how it completely swept away houses and how much ground scouring it produced, it makes sense how it was rated that way. Granted, I don’t know the strength of the houses it swept away, but the ground scouring is also evidence that it was likely EF5 strength.
I’m guessing because it stood still they’re thinking if it wouldn’t have it wouldn’t have done the damage it did, but honestly that shouldn’t matter. A paused tornado over a populated area is still an extremely dangerous tornado.
Also look at the debris granulation.empty foundations besides small dust and wood chips. Fargo was also slow moving but it didnt granulate debris like this.
The paper Im referencing (cant find it atm) claims that due to the glacial speed of the tornado, an F3 tornado would've done the same damage.
This thread would have been a lot more fun if Xenia had stayed as an F6. As someone else said, a lot of F5 (pre-EF) tornadoes would likely have been downgraded based on building construction. Not specifically from an F rating perspective, but Grazulis points to the Pampa, TX F4 as one of the strongest tornadoes ever, but nothing I've seen puts it into the realm of Moore/El Reno/Joplin/etc,
the Pampa tornado stripped asphalt from the road and lifted a 35,000 lb lathe.
All tornadoes work hard for their ratings, it would be rude to suggest any of them didn't deserve it
Put some respect on their names!
They didn’t go to 10 minutes of EF5 school to be called EF3
Won't people look out for the hard working, blue collar, family feeding, tornado?
Fucking bravo. BRAVO
Most of the F5 rated tornadoes wouldn’t be rated EF5 today. Maybe 10% of them would be rated EF5 today.
They only assign ef5 when they are certain it did ef5 damage. Probably should put one and one together on that? The controversy is they under rate tornadoes. Why would that controversy exist if they were assigning the highest rating when it wasn't needed?
First of all, I put in the title "EF5/F5", which means that I'm also asking if there were F5 tornadoes in the original Fujita Scale that might've been weaker than the original teams sent to investigate the damage claim. If you want you could point out an F5 tornado that would've been an EF4 today. I know that there are problems with underrating tornadoes, I literally posted that question a few weeks ago.
If this topic really interests you then maybe Thomas Grazulis's work would interest you, he wrote a book called significant tornadoes that goes into as much detail as possible about all possible and confirmed f4-f5 tornadoes and his opinions on the ratings.
Look homie idk if this question really has a good answer. There may be a few fringe choices but the f scale and ef scale don't function the same, so asking which ones didn't deserve their rating doesn't make sense. The tornadoes that got rated f5 got rated off of that scale, and tornadoes that got ef5 were rated of that scale. If you phrased the question "which f5 tornado would not get ef5 today" that would be a better question, although I doubt you would get many good answers since the level of construction weren't always detailed in damage reports in older tornadoes.
First of all, Jesus Christ you're picky. There's multiple ways to answer the questions and I'd be fine with anyone of them: 1. Which F5's would not be an EF5(which you referred to)? 2. Which F5's either from the past or in the 90s should be rated as an F4 or below due to faulty damage surveys? 3. Which EF5's could be rated as an EF4 due to the stringency of the EF scale? If you answered any of these 3 versions of the original open-ended question it'd be fine, but no you had to get defensive in your response and act like my question isn't even answerable rather than try to adapt and answer the question in the way you know how.
I think you might be projecting a little bit about who's being defensive here
Listen even the Joplin and Moore tornado had some controversy over whether or not they actually deserved an EF5 rating rather than just getting a high-end EF4, so while the controversy of underrating a tornado is bigger, there is still some discussion going the other way
That's a fair point, though I think the controversy for the most part has been cleared up with both after further breakdowns of the damage. I'm not trying to talk down to you or anything so I apologize if my comments came across that way, was just saying the way I see it personally. I don't think you deserved to get downvoted either, discussion of differing points is even more important than everyone nodding heads in agreement.
That’s a fair point, I apologize for being aggressive as well
The Joplin tornado’s EF5 rating is actually a bit contentious, as some survey crews couldn’t find any EF5 damage and felt EF4 was much more accurate. I don’t think it’s very likely that there wasn’t an ounce of EF5 damage, those crews probably just missed the right evidence. Still, it’s a good reminder that the rating is based on the maximum damage observed, not average. The vast majority of damage to the town of Joplin was in the EF3 to low EF4 range.
What;s the DI for a hospital being torn off its foundation? The damage there was all I needed to see to believe the EF5
If Joplin isn’t an EF5 then there’s no point in having tornado ratings honestly
Idk exactly but I do know that it's easier to do that to large structures like hospitals and apartment buildings. More surface area makes it easier for it to get got by the wind
Not saying the damage to the hospital can’t count as EF5 damage, but it’s a bit disingenuous to say it was “torn off its foundation”. The structure was compromised, but the hospital was very much so standing after the storm. A large EF4 tornado could absolutely do the same.
Hospital was EF3 150mph
Copy pasted from the official report: ["and the fact the St. John’s hospital building structure and foundation were compromised and will need to be torn down, were probably caused by winds speed at or exceeding 200 mph."](https://web.archive.org/web/20120302154024/http://www.crh.noaa.gov/sgf/?n=event_2011may22_survey)
This, under the new EF scale, designates it an EF5. This thread inspired me to compare the two scales and I knew they adjusted the wind speeds, but not to the degree they actually did it. EF5 is 200+ when the original Fujita Scale was 261-318. I feel like I saw this similar discussion recently as it pertains to El Reno as it spent a great deal of its time in open country. Conscientious objectors are fixated on the immediate size and appearance of a tornado in the moment and assume “oh that’s an F-5!” It’s reckless to do that. I could be wrong but I think El Renounce wound up being an EF3 when you account for max wind speed and the type of damage it did. On the surface, people know it was over two miles wide and want to wish it to be an F-5. This stuff has always been fascinating to me, but admittedly, my knowledge is still kinda pedestrian.
When I think of tornadoes that shouldent have been giving the F5 rating I look at some of the tornadoes from the 1974 super outbreak. I think a large majority of which were a little over rated by one level.
F5 tornado in Germany from 1764. They sent a guy to examine the damage, which was kind of unusual for the time. The tornado might have done a lot of damage, but was it really F5 damage?
Well, he did a detailed report, and it's not like he was the one that decided it was F5, because the scale didn't exist yet. If modern people reading the report decided it was F5, then it most likely was.
Has anyone actually seen the full report though? I’ve looked for it and never found it. Any retelling of the story simply stated the report found “incredible damage” at the mansion, without really detailing what that meant other than oak trees ripped from the ground.
Not sure if this is what you're looking for, [but here are translations of several recent and ancient accounts](https://www.reddit.com/r/tornado/comments/13o00b7/english_translation_for_gottlob_burchard_genzmer) from last year.
Yo people in this comment chain downvoting for stating truths and asking questions. Downvotes are for comments that don't contribute to the discussion, quit using them as "I don't like what they said" button.
I think any EF2 from over 250 years ago is an F5 when you compare the structures taking a direct hit.
Not true. Many modern homes are built less structurally sound than old ones. Edit: for the downvoters, [Woldegk was a fortified town with ramparts and moats](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woldegk) [The tornado destroyed a well built mansion](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1764_Woldegk_tornado)
It’s frustrating that some people are downvoting you. I think some people are uncomfortable that we as a modern society build droves of potentially subpar homes in areas frequented by violent tornadoes. But denying reality is not going to accomplish anything good.
It’s more like the arrogance of thinking our current society is “the best”. You also see people that think current society is more intelligent than past peoples because *some* individuals in our society do great things. They ignore that older societies had significantly less resources. Like education. Older societies did amazing things with considerably less resources. I also see people downvoting something they disagree with. They want their opinion to be validated. That had no place in a scientific discussion. Suppressing counterpoints is intellectual dishonesty.
I agree. I think that, especially in regards to older societies, many people were quite observant of their environment and learned a lot that way (though it also encompasses deceptive observations and wrong assumptions). In part, it was necessary for survival. For tornadoes, in particular, I see a lot in Internet forums of disbelief that other times or other countries may have - in some types of housing - sturdier construction practices. It is that dangerous assumption that one’s own modern society is the most advanced stage in a linear evolution of practices. But in some categories, it demonstrably is not and when people don’t want to listen to contrary evidence, that causes problems.
There is old and then there is very old. The Tri-State Tornado wasn't the deadliest just because of a lack of forecasting. Same with the Galveston 1900 hurricane.
I grew up in a time of no warnings. No sirens until I was around 10. You had to rely on your knowledge of the weather. That didn’t help if you were asleep. Warnings have made a huge difference. But I find it ironic that current poor build quality is one of the main reasons we can’t declare some tornados an F5. Yet all of a sudden these poor build quality homes are better than some of the older ones with good foundations. Some of those very old homes are very old **because** of their excellent build quality. Have you seen some of those German homes? Huge timbers, extensive foundation etc. I stand by my assertion. Older isn’t necessarily weaker. Edit: as far as the Galveston hurricane goes, I’d suggest you read [Isaacs Storm](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Isaacs-Storm-Deadliest-Hurricane-History/dp/0609602330). They were **not allowed** to warn people with the term “hurricane”.
I'm not an architect but I don't think it's weird to assume an average home from 250+ years ago was more vulnerable than an average modern home, even in Germany. If you had a great foundation in any 100+ year home you were probably fairly wealthy.
Incorrect assumption. You had multigenerational households living under one roof. A lot of the architecture was medieval. [Woldegk](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woldegk) was a fortified town with ramparts and moats.
Well said.
[удалено]
Yes it was a monster but no it was not an EF5, and that wasn't even his question. His question was what tornadoes DIDN'T deserve EF5/F5
I think the issue with Joplin is because when it hit the city it was an F3 and then it intensified to an F4 then and F5 so it was really hard to probably differentiate between damage due to the fact it intensified when it was on its rampage.
Vilonia Arkansas really should’ve been an ef5. It swept well built homes clean off their foundation and Arguably the Louisville ef4 from the same day also had ef5 intensity. Mayfield Kentucky was no doubt ef5. Rolling fork was close, I can talk about this topic for hours. Anyone else wanna chime in on potential ef5 candidates?
[удалено]
Unreasonable conduct, hateful speech or aggression toward anyone is not allowed at any time.
1982 Golden, OK 1996 Oakfield, WI 1953 Anita-Adair, IA
I highly doubt people care if it was an EF4 or an EF5 that destroyed their home or killed their loved one.
What a crazy comment to make here. It’s almost as if you have empathy and aren’t just interested in violence
Elie F5 was not even close to as powerful as Rochelle, Mayfield, and dozens of others EF4s over the last 10 years. It was rated a F5 a week after the event because of one grainy video taken miles away of a single house. From my knowledge the original damage assessors didn’t even give it a F5 until that random video surfaced which is crazy considering the DI’s of some EF4’s that also have videos showing entire towns being devastated
Yeah but did you see the video of the house?
Elie was very strong, debarked trees, mangling cars, and completely destroying houses
It did damage on one house for 2 seconds that Mayfield, Rochelle, etc did for 30 minutes straight on dozens of buildings/entire towns. They aren’t even in the same category of strength
I mean it doesn’t really matter the duration of the strength. That’s like saying a EF2 that was on the ground for a minute is weaker than an EF1 that was on the ground for 20 minutes. But I do agree that Mayfield and Rochelle probably had wind speeds over 200 mph.
My point is there’s like a dozen EF4 that have done similar damage albeit over much larger areas