During the flood of news coverage regarding the tornado in Moore, OK,
they have said over and over that they will rebuild. I can understand
their need to rebuild, but somehow their plans dont make much sense to
me.

They have had 3 major tornados in that town during the past 14 years. I
believe the dates were 1999, 2003, and 2013. The tv coverage showed the
paths of these three tornados, and all of them crossed the same points.

There is a saying that says "three strikes and you're out". Yes, these
people need to rebuild, BUT NOT AT THAT SAME LOCATION. It appears that
location is a crossroads for tornados. Sure, a tornado can hit
anywhere, but for some reason, this particular place seems to be the
spot where they occur repeatedly. It's just not a safe place to build.
They need to relocate that whole town elsewhere. This is no different
than towns along rivers that flood every few years, and many such towns
are forced to relocate by local or federal government. Moore should be
no different. Actually, the people should now know to do so. How many
times will they have to rebuild and how many more lives must be lost
before they come to their senses.

Seeing the buildings that were destroyed, it's obvious that they can not
build any structure strong enough to exist in that place. Many of the
buildings were constructed of concrete and steel, and even those did not
survive. No building can be built strong enough to survive storms like
that. Why even try to rebuild in that same location.

I'm no expert on storms or the terrain of that area, but there must be
some reason that that terrain and/or atmosphere keep demolishing that
same place. That town just needs to be moved. The homes which survived
should be moved, and those that were destroyed need to be built
elsewhere. Oklahoma is a fairly large state, there must be somewhere
else to move that town, not too far away, but in a safer place. Then
the current location should be turned back to crop land or forests and
never lived on again. It's just common sense!

wrote:

They have had 3 major tornados in that town during the past 14 years.
How many times will they have to rebuild and how many more lives
must be lost before they come to their senses.

Ask the insurance companies. Or the banks.

If the insurance companies refuse to insure new homes, then they can't
get mortgages.

If the insurance companies adjust the risk appropriately for that
location, then it would be financially foolish to rebuild.

Wish our elected representatives had common sense. That sure is refreshing.

Maybe they should allow six weeks to get personal items out. Photos, and such. And then burn the entire city to the ground, let it go back to nature.
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
..
wrote in message ...
During the flood of news coverage regarding the tornado in Moore, OK,
they have said over and over that they will rebuild. I can understand
their need to rebuild, but somehow their plans dont make much sense to
me.

They have had 3 major tornados in that town during the past 14 years. I
believe the dates were 1999, 2003, and 2013. The tv coverage showed the
paths of these three tornados, and all of them crossed the same points.

There is a saying that says "three strikes and you're out". Yes, these
people need to rebuild, BUT NOT AT THAT SAME LOCATION. It appears that
location is a crossroads for tornados. Sure, a tornado can hit
anywhere, but for some reason, this particular place seems to be the
spot where they occur repeatedly. It's just not a safe place to build.
They need to relocate that whole town elsewhere. This is no different
than towns along rivers that flood every few years, and many such towns
are forced to relocate by local or federal government. Moore should be
no different. Actually, the people should now know to do so. How many
times will they have to rebuild and how many more lives must be lost
before they come to their senses.

Seeing the buildings that were destroyed, it's obvious that they can not
build any structure strong enough to exist in that place. Many of the
buildings were constructed of concrete and steel, and even those did not
survive. No building can be built strong enough to survive storms like
that. Why even try to rebuild in that same location.

I'm no expert on storms or the terrain of that area, but there must be
some reason that that terrain and/or atmosphere keep demolishing that
same place. That town just needs to be moved. The homes which survived
should be moved, and those that were destroyed need to be built
elsewhere. Oklahoma is a fairly large state, there must be somewhere
else to move that town, not too far away, but in a safer place. Then
the current location should be turned back to crop land or forests and
never lived on again. It's just common sense!

Rebuild should be steel reinforced concrete buildings......

They can be made to look like normal buildings but be strong enough to
withstand 300 MPH winds

hey rebuid if you want but heres the new building code.....

The only US city that survives the up coming nuclear blast?
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
..
"bob haller" wrote in message ...
Rebuild should be steel reinforced concrete buildings......

They can be made to look like normal buildings but be strong enough to
withstand 300 MPH winds

hey rebuid if you want but heres the new building code.....

On Wed, 22 May 2013 06:45:21 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

Rebuild should be steel reinforced concrete buildings......


Photo of a bank - before & after. Folks were saved by hiding in the
vault. The bank is gone, but the vault is still partially standing.

http://localtvwtvr.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/bank2.jpg?w=660&h=297

On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 6:45:21 AM UTC-7, bob haller wrote:
Rebuild should be steel reinforced concrete buildings......



They can be made to look like normal buildings but be strong enough to

withstand 300 MPH winds



hey rebuid if you want but heres the new building code.....

Exactly what I was about to say.

wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 6:45:21 AM UTC-7, bob haller wrote:
Rebuild should be steel reinforced concrete buildings......



They can be made to look like normal buildings but be strong enough to

withstand 300 MPH winds



hey rebuid if you want but heres the new building code.....

Exactly what I was about to say.

A building expert on the radio this morning talked about making homes
tornado resistant. Affordable buildings using wood beams and studs can be
designed to withstand winds of 200 mph or so using proper construction and
such things as straps and clips to keep the roof on and the walls standing.
Winds of 300 mph destroy everything above ground and the wood itself
shatters in wood structure buildings. The expert agreed that an
old-fashioned storm cellar would be a good way to keep a family safe and
then if more space was wanted to preserve belongings, a reinforced basement
was next.

Tomsic

On Wed, 22 May 2013 04:44:10 -0500, wrote:

During the flood of news coverage regarding the tornado in Moore, OK,
they have said over and over that they will rebuild. I can understand
their need to rebuild, but somehow their plans dont make much sense to
me.

They have had 3 major tornados in that town during the past 14 years. I
believe the dates were 1999, 2003, and 2013. The tv coverage showed the
paths of these three tornados, and all of them crossed the same points.

There is a saying that says "three strikes and you're out". Yes, these
people need to rebuild, BUT NOT AT THAT SAME LOCATION. It appears that
location is a crossroads for tornados. Sure, a tornado can hit
anywhere, but for some reason, this particular place seems to be the
spot where they occur repeatedly. It's just not a safe place to build.
They need to relocate that whole town elsewhere. This is no different
than towns along rivers that flood every few years, and many such towns
are forced to relocate by local or federal government. Moore should be
no different. Actually, the people should now know to do so. How many
times will they have to rebuild and how many more lives must be lost
before they come to their senses.

Do casinos remove #23 on the roulette wheel if it gets hit three times
in three years?

Seeing the buildings that were destroyed, it's obvious that they can not
build any structure strong enough to exist in that place. Many of the
buildings were constructed of concrete and steel, and even those did not
survive. No building can be built strong enough to survive storms like
that. Why even try to rebuild in that same location.

I'm no expert on storms or the terrain of that area, but there must be
some reason that that terrain and/or atmosphere keep demolishing that
same place. That town just needs to be moved. The homes which survived
should be moved, and those that were destroyed need to be built
elsewhere. Oklahoma is a fairly large state, there must be somewhere
else to move that town, not too far away, but in a safer place. Then
the current location should be turned back to crop land or forests and
never lived on again. It's just common sense!

"There *MUST* be some reason!" Maybe there are sinners living in
those areas. boggle

On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:03:17 -0400, "=" wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 6:45:21 AM UTC-7, bob haller wrote:
Rebuild should be steel reinforced concrete buildings......



They can be made to look like normal buildings but be strong enough to

withstand 300 MPH winds



hey rebuid if you want but heres the new building code.....

Exactly what I was about to say.

A building expert on the radio this morning talked about making homes
tornado resistant. Affordable buildings using wood beams and studs can be
designed to withstand winds of 200 mph or so using proper construction and
such things as straps and clips to keep the roof on and the walls standing.
Winds of 300 mph destroy everything above ground and the wood itself
shatters in wood structure buildings. The expert agreed that an
old-fashioned storm cellar would be a good way to keep a family safe and
then if more space was wanted to preserve belongings, a reinforced basement
was next.

There is a difference between 200mph straight line winds and a
tornado. Forget it. It's not reasonable to "tornado proof" any
structure. Build an underground shelter and pick up the pieces later.

On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:52:14 -0400, wrote:

There is a difference between 200mph straight line winds and a
tornado. Forget it. It's not reasonable to "tornado proof" any
structure. Build an underground shelter and pick up the pieces later.

.... and wear clean underwear

FEMA has grants for school storm shelters. The City has to match the
grant money?

Small communities have few tax dollars, like Moore, OK. Still reeling
from 1999 - F5?

In ,
belched:
During the flood of news coverage regarding the tornado in Moore, OK,
they have said over and over that they will rebuild. I can understand
their need to rebuild, but somehow their plans dont make much sense to
me.



If your house/home was hit by lighting and burnt to the ground, would you
move or rebuild?
How many times do the wackos in Californication have to be burned out or
washed away by mudslides, earthquakes before they move?
Do you understand what a home means to some people?
Obviously not

On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 3:46:59 PM UTC-7, ChairMan wrote:
In ,

belched:

During the flood of news coverage regarding the tornado in Moore, OK,

they have said over and over that they will rebuild. I can understand

their need to rebuild, but somehow their plans dont make much sense to

me.







If your house/home was hit by lighting and burnt to the ground, would you

move or rebuild?

How many times do the wackos in Californication have to be burned out or

washed away by mudslides, earthquakes before they move?

Do you understand what a home means to some people?

Obviously not

I’m a builder and I would trust placing my dearest granddaughter in a F5 tornado as long as I designed and built the structure. The structure wouldn’t be made of wood and it wouldn’t be cheap. What people need to realize is that it is simply too expensive to build in certain areas; but as long as you can afford a whole lot of concrete and steel then have at it.

On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:47:44 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:52:14 -0400, wrote:

There is a difference between 200mph straight line winds and a
tornado. Forget it. It's not reasonable to "tornado proof" any
structure. Build an underground shelter and pick up the pieces later.

... and wear clean underwear

Why bother?

FEMA has grants for school storm shelters. The City has to match the
grant money?

Is that a question?

Small communities have few tax dollars, like Moore, OK. Still reeling
from 1999 - F5?

Sure, but lefties always like to spend OPM.

wrote:

I’m a builder and I would trust placing my dearest granddaughter
in a F5 tornado as long as I designed and built the structure.

And under what circumstance would you be forced to place your
granddaughter in structure of your design that is about to face and F5
tornado?

The structure wouldn’t be made of wood and it wouldn’t be cheap.
What people need to realize is that it is simply too expensive
to build in certain areas; but as long as you can afford a whole
lot of concrete and steel then have at it.

The point is this:

Why would you want to design and build a house that could face a tornado
and come out with minimal dammage if your surrounding community was
trashed, your trees and surround property was trashed, etc.

Coming out as the only house for blocks that survived a tornado would
just leave you in the middle of a garbage dump with an uncertain
economic future.

Between all the tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, forest fires, land
slides, sink holes and earth quakes that happen in the US, and the
deserts, mountains and other places were you simply can't build a house
or a community, there really isin't a lot of land area in the US where
you can have a home or entire city that can go 20, 30, 50 years without
getting ****ed over by mother nature.

wrote:
On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:47:44 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:52:14 -0400, wrote:

There is a difference between 200mph straight line winds and a
tornado. Forget it. It's not reasonable to "tornado proof" any
structure. Build an underground shelter and pick up the pieces
later.

... and wear clean underwear

Why bother?

FEMA has grants for school storm shelters. The City has to match the
grant money?

Is that a question?

Small communities have few tax dollars, like Moore, OK. Still reeling
from 1999 - F5?

Sure, but lefties always like to spend OPM.

And righties like to see themselves and neighbors die in tornados?

On Wed, 22 May 2013 18:00:52 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:47:44 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:52:14 -0400, wrote:

There is a difference between 200mph straight line winds and a
tornado. Forget it. It's not reasonable to "tornado proof" any
structure. Build an underground shelter and pick up the pieces
later.

... and wear clean underwear

Why bother?

FEMA has grants for school storm shelters. The City has to match the
grant money?

Is that a question?

Small communities have few tax dollars, like Moore, OK. Still reeling
from 1999 - F5?

Sure, but lefties always like to spend OPM.

And righties like to see themselves and neighbors die in tornados?

You just *must* dance on the graves of the tornado victims, don't you?
Typical lefty.

On Wed, 22 May 2013 17:30:46 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 3:46:59 PM UTC-7, ChairMan wrote:
In ,

belched:

During the flood of news coverage regarding the tornado in Moore, OK,

they have said over and over that they will rebuild. I can understand

their need to rebuild, but somehow their plans dont make much sense to

me.







If your house/home was hit by lighting and burnt to the ground, would you

move or rebuild?

How many times do the wackos in Californication have to be burned out or

washed away by mudslides, earthquakes before they move?

Do you understand what a home means to some people?

Obviously not

I’m a builder and I would trust placing my dearest granddaughter in a F5 tornado as long as I designed and built the structure. The structure wouldn’t be made of wood and it wouldn’t be cheap. What people need to realize is that it is simply too expensive to build in certain areas; but as long as you can afford a whole lot of concrete and steel then have at it.

In a structure? You're crazy!

On Wed, 22 May 2013 20:52:55 -0400, Home Guy wrote:



The point is this:

Why would you want to design and build a house that could face a tornado
and come out with minimal dammage if your surrounding community was
trashed, your trees and surround property was trashed, etc.

Coming out as the only house for blocks that survived a tornado would
just leave you in the middle of a garbage dump with an uncertain
economic future.


I'd be alive and that would be a nice reward. If everyone built their
houses from concrete and steel, I've have plenty of neighbors. Of
course there would still be some damage, but far less.

This town seems to be in a very tornado prone spot due probably to
topography. If that is so, I'd build 10 miles away. I do not know
this for fact, but I'd investigate before building.


Between all the tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, forest fires, land
slides, sink holes and earth quakes that happen in the US, and the
deserts, mountains and other places were you simply can't build a house
or a community, there really isin't a lot of land area in the US where
you can have a home or entire city that can go 20, 30, 50 years without
getting ****ed over by mother nature.

Wrong. There are tens of thousands of square miles with homes never
damaged by severe weather. Of course there is plenty of risky areas.
IMO, if you want to build right on the ocean beach, go ahead, just
don't ask me for help when it is destroyed by a high tide in a storm.
Same goes with houses built below sea level like in New Orleans.

As it is, our tornado area is very close to where much of our food is
grown. There is some risk living there. OTOH, when a river floods
every four to ten years, you don't build there as many still do. Or
put the house on stilts well above historic flood levels.

On Wed, 22 May 2013 21:29:58 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Wed, 22 May 2013 20:52:55 -0400, Home Guy wrote:



The point is this:

Why would you want to design and build a house that could face a tornado
and come out with minimal dammage if your surrounding community was
trashed, your trees and surround property was trashed, etc.

Coming out as the only house for blocks that survived a tornado would
just leave you in the middle of a garbage dump with an uncertain
economic future.


I'd be alive and that would be a nice reward. If everyone built their
houses from concrete and steel, I've have plenty of neighbors. Of
course there would still be some damage, but far less.

This town seems to be in a very tornado prone spot due probably to
topography. If that is so, I'd build 10 miles away. I do not know
this for fact, but I'd investigate before building.

You've never lived in tornado country, obviously.

Between all the tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, forest fires, land
slides, sink holes and earth quakes that happen in the US, and the
deserts, mountains and other places were you simply can't build a house
or a community, there really isin't a lot of land area in the US where
you can have a home or entire city that can go 20, 30, 50 years without
getting ****ed over by mother nature.

Wrong. There are tens of thousands of square miles with homes never
damaged by severe weather. Of course there is plenty of risky areas.
IMO, if you want to build right on the ocean beach, go ahead, just
don't ask me for help when it is destroyed by a high tide in a storm.
Same goes with houses built below sea level like in New Orleans.

They hadn't been in New Jersey, either.

As it is, our tornado area is very close to where much of our food is
grown. There is some risk living there. OTOH, when a river floods
every four to ten years, you don't build there as many still do. Or
put the house on stilts well above historic flood levels.

There, we agree. You don't have to move far to avoid floods.

In article ,
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I'd be alive and that would be a nice reward. If everyone built their
houses from concrete and steel, I've have plenty of neighbors. Of
course there would still be some damage, but far less.

If everyone built their house out of concrete and steel, you would
likely have fewer neighbors since substantially fewer people would be
able to afford to live there (or anywhere).


This town seems to be in a very tornado prone spot due probably to
topography. If that is so, I'd build 10 miles away. I do not know
this for fact, but I'd investigate before building.

But still only two tornadoes following this path over all the years
of recorded history. I'd probably ask about topography NOW, but hardly
something that would have come up prior to earlier this week.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Thu, 23 May 2013 09:05:42 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

But still only two tornadoes following this path over all the years
of recorded history. I'd probably ask about topography NOW, but hardly
something that would have come up prior to earlier this week.

Not two, but three. 1999, 2003, 2013. The 99 and current one were both
very severe, the current one was an F5, The 99 one was either F4 or F5
(I forgot what they said). The 2003 one was serious but smaller.

It's just common sense!


"Everybody's got to be somewhere".

On Thu, 23 May 2013 09:05:42 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I'd be alive and that would be a nice reward. If everyone built their
houses from concrete and steel, I've have plenty of neighbors. Of
course there would still be some damage, but far less.

If everyone built their house out of concrete and steel, you would
likely have fewer neighbors since substantially fewer people would be
able to afford to live there (or anywhere).


You'd lose very few neighbors due to cost. It can be done for about 5%
over regular construction. I know people that build them and have had
homes built with ICFs. You also save on energy costs for the life of
the house.