I so remember this!! I still remember my parents watching the news and my dad & sister were so pumped up about it.... My mom & me were freaking out! I was 7!!
This storm produced the strongest tornado in history :D and the highest winds ever recored on planet earth, 316 mph is how fast the winds were in this tornado
@kdolo100 no , well, according to wiki-knowledge it was "301 mph (484 km/h), ±20 mph inside the tornado at a height of 32 m AGL (Wurman et al. 2007).[1][Note 2] These winds, however, occurred above the ground, and winds at the surface may not have been quite this intense"
maybe 321mph or maybe 281 mph and that's almost measured at a height almost 10 stories high.
@Fernandez218 According to josh,it was 318mph gust near bridgecreek at about 300 feet inside the funnel,however portable radar isn't accurate,and there is a +9 or -9 mph error with this measurement.I'm sure it was less than 301mph at ground level due to friction with the ground.
@kdolo100 so .... why would you say "no" when the dude you responded to was approximately right? who cares if the measurement was taken 10 stories high, near the bridgecreek, or near the ground ... especially when there's an inaccuracy in the measuring devices to begin with?
@Fernandez218 Why dont u go out and purchase the book written by tom grazulis which goes in depth buddy.He is a chaser who i've talked to several times,and he has also taled to mr.wurman personally.Get it right man,we're talking facts here.
@kdolo100 facts that i've acquired from YOUR posts: "No, it was 318mph [is how fast the winds were in this tornado -- the highest winds ever recorded on planet earth], but 301mph at ground level" so a difference of around 20mph right there. 20/318 ~ 6% error
"portable radar isn't accurate there is a +/-9mph error with this measurement. i'm sure ti was less than 301mph at ground level due to friction with ground."
that's a change of 18~20 => 20/318, once again 6% error.
@kdolo100 this first dude said 318mph and you avoided my question about the "no". you seemed picky. i corrected you via wiki. you replied with statements about in-depth knowledge from tom grazulis' book ....
my point: first guy didn't really need correction. his error was an order of magnitude lower than the eror brought on by varying heights; varying locations; and varying equipment (most likely), of the tornado. just thought you were repetitive and thought i should point it out. thanks
@kdolo100 true that; i was just tryin' to understand why someone would correct another person on a figure in the range of 318mph by something as small as 2 which is a small fraction of a percentage.
what was one of the main things in the book that fascinated you -- something that someone else wouldn't find online or in other tornado videos?
@Fernandez218 Well,i been fascinated by tornadoes since i was 3,and i am obsessed with them.That ook is called (the tornado;nature's ultimate windstorm).I was shocked to find out that it can only take winds in the EF3 range to create EF5 damage to a house.But we know most houses aren't built properly anyway.
I thought 44 people died, and like 3 of them were taking refuge under underpasses....?
JsHockeychick87 10 months ago
36 people died, no 9011. That'd be like the whole population of Chickakasha.
jmeier37 11 months ago
I so remember this!! I still remember my parents watching the news and my dad & sister were so pumped up about it.... My mom & me were freaking out! I was 7!!
Scabzilla49 11 months ago
This storm produced the strongest tornado in history :D and the highest winds ever recored on planet earth, 316 mph is how fast the winds were in this tornado
xxDEATHKILLERxx 1 year ago
@xxDEATHKILLERxx No,it was 318 mph,but 301 mph at ground level.
kdolo100 1 year ago
@kdolo100 no , well, according to wiki-knowledge it was "301 mph (484 km/h), ±20 mph inside the tornado at a height of 32 m AGL (Wurman et al. 2007).[1][Note 2] These winds, however, occurred above the ground, and winds at the surface may not have been quite this intense"
maybe 321mph or maybe 281 mph and that's almost measured at a height almost 10 stories high.
Fernandez218 10 months ago
@Fernandez218 According to josh,it was 318mph gust near bridgecreek at about 300 feet inside the funnel,however portable radar isn't accurate,and there is a +9 or -9 mph error with this measurement.I'm sure it was less than 301mph at ground level due to friction with the ground.
kdolo100 10 months ago
@kdolo100 so .... why would you say "no" when the dude you responded to was approximately right? who cares if the measurement was taken 10 stories high, near the bridgecreek, or near the ground ... especially when there's an inaccuracy in the measuring devices to begin with?
Fernandez218 10 months ago
@Fernandez218 Why dont u go out and purchase the book written by tom grazulis which goes in depth buddy.He is a chaser who i've talked to several times,and he has also taled to mr.wurman personally.Get it right man,we're talking facts here.
kdolo100 10 months ago
@kdolo100 facts that i've acquired from YOUR posts: "No, it was 318mph [is how fast the winds were in this tornado -- the highest winds ever recorded on planet earth], but 301mph at ground level" so a difference of around 20mph right there. 20/318 ~ 6% error
"portable radar isn't accurate there is a +/-9mph error with this measurement. i'm sure ti was less than 301mph at ground level due to friction with ground."
that's a change of 18~20 => 20/318, once again 6% error.
Fernandez218 10 months ago
@kdolo100 this first dude said 318mph and you avoided my question about the "no". you seemed picky. i corrected you via wiki. you replied with statements about in-depth knowledge from tom grazulis' book ....
my point: first guy didn't really need correction. his error was an order of magnitude lower than the eror brought on by varying heights; varying locations; and varying equipment (most likely), of the tornado. just thought you were repetitive and thought i should point it out. thanks
Fernandez218 10 months ago
@Fernandez218 U do know that wiki isn't a reliable source.I read wiki myself,but i always keep in mind that it isn't reliable.
kdolo100 10 months ago
@kdolo100 true that; i was just tryin' to understand why someone would correct another person on a figure in the range of 318mph by something as small as 2 which is a small fraction of a percentage.
what was one of the main things in the book that fascinated you -- something that someone else wouldn't find online or in other tornado videos?
Fernandez218 10 months ago
@Fernandez218 Well,i been fascinated by tornadoes since i was 3,and i am obsessed with them.That ook is called (the tornado;nature's ultimate windstorm).I was shocked to find out that it can only take winds in the EF3 range to create EF5 damage to a house.But we know most houses aren't built properly anyway.
kdolo100 10 months ago
9011 people did not due in a tornado
ferrarimike23 1 year ago
Godd. This is so sad. Bridge Creek was my hometown, i'm glad I moved to Iowa 3 years ago, especially after yesterday...
filliesfosho 1 year ago
i remember this the power of that twister and the ones that went to kansas were over 9000!!!!
super65man 1 year ago
@super65man That's because 9011 people died in those tornados, hence the over 9000!
rudypoodoo 1 year ago