Should we be worried?

[ding]

That's likely why so many homes are destroyed by lesser winds.

Really? Do you have any examples?

 

[ding]

Well, there is a lot of money to be made from storm and other damage to homes. My late brother made a good living at it.

Isn't that why they have insurance?

 

[ding]

That's not an area of EF-5 damage except maybe on the far right ... see along the upper part of the photograph ... these homes are still standing, uninhabitable but standing, that's EF-3 ... in the center, homes are down but sit upon their respective foundations, EF-4 ... frankly I don't see any homes swept off their foundations ...

Se here where the debris is all mixed up and scattered about the various foundations? ... EF-5 ...

Remember: the Fajita Scale for tornadoes measures damage done, not wind speed ...

From the link I provided in the post you are responding to:

The 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado (locally referred to as the May 3 tornado) was a large and exceptionally powerful F5 tornado in which the highest wind speeds ever measured globally were recorded at 301 ± 20 miles per hour (484 ± 32 km/h) by a Doppler on Wheels (DOW) radar. Considered the strongest tornado ever recorded to have affected the metropolitan area, the tornado while near peak intensity devastated southern portions of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States, along with surrounding suburbs and towns to the south and southwest of the city during the early evening of Monday, May 3, 1999. Parts of Bridge Creek were rendered unrecognizable. The tornado covered 38 miles (61 km) during its 85-minute existence, destroying thousands of homes, killing 36 people (plus an additional five indirectly), and leaving US$1 billion (1999 USD) in damage,[5] ranking it as the fifth-costliest on record not accounting for inflation.[6] Its severity prompted the first-ever use of the tornado emergency statement by the National Weather Service.

 

[ReinyDays]

From the link I provided in the post you are responding to:

The 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado (locally referred to as the May 3 tornado) was a large and exceptionally powerful F5 tornado in which the highest wind speeds ever measured globally were recorded at 301 ± 20 miles per hour (484 ± 32 km/h) by a Doppler on Wheels (DOW) radar. Considered the strongest tornado ever recorded to have affected the metropolitan area, the tornado while near peak intensity devastated southern portions of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States, along with surrounding suburbs and towns to the south and southwest of the city during the early evening of Monday, May 3, 1999. Parts of Bridge Creek were rendered unrecognizable. The tornado covered 38 miles (61 km) during its 85-minute existence, destroying thousands of homes, killing 36 people (plus an additional five indirectly), and leaving US$1 billion (1999 USD) in damage,[5] ranking it as the fifth-costliest on record not accounting for inflation.[6] Its severity prompted the first-ever use of the tornado emergency statement by the National Weather Service.

Here's the map ... as you can see, the tornado was only briefly at EF-5 ... and thus your wide-angle photograph will extend beyond the area that endured the EF-5 damage ...

I repeat ... the Fajita Scale measure DAMAGE ... not wind speed ...

 

[ding]

Here's the map ... as you can see, the tornado was only briefly at EF-5 ... and thus your wide-angle photograph will extend beyond the area that endured the EF-5 damage ...

I repeat ... the Fajita Scale measure DAMAGE ... not wind speed ...

...highest wind speeds ever measured globally were recorded at 301 ± 20 miles per hour (484 ± 32 km/h) by a Doppler on Wheels (DOW) radar.

 

[Woodznutz]

Isn't that why they have insurance?

Exactly. He worked with insurance companies to find these jobs.

 

[Woodznutz]

Really? Do you have any examples?

Not without picking through the rubble to determine whether the house had storm bracing.

 

[ReinyDays]

...highest wind speeds ever measured globally were recorded at 301 ± 20 miles per hour (484 ± 32 km/h) by a Doppler on Wheels (DOW) radar.

There's storm chasers in Siberia with state-of-the-art mobile Doppler radar ... what was the exit velocity for Krakatoa? ... disbursement from Chicxulub ...

Why the issue with the comments I posted? ... the upper right shows EF-3 damage ... "roof gone, walls standing" ... 301 mph will "sweep well built homes off their foundations" ... EF-5 ... your photo doesn't show any EF-5 because EF-5 damage was very limited ... winds were BRIEFLY 301 mph ... use common sense ... just a few homes other than the elementary school ...

Look it up yourself if you don't believe me ...

"IF there weren't any mobile home parks, THEN there wouldn't be tornadoes" ...

 

[jc456]

There's storm chasers in Siberia with state-of-the-art mobile Doppler radar ... what was the exit velocity for Krakatoa? ... disbursement from Chicxulub ...

Why the issue with the comments I posted? ... the upper right shows EF-3 damage ... "roof gone, walls standing" ... 301 mph will "sweep well built homes off their foundations" ... EF-5 ... your photo doesn't show any EF-5 because EF-5 damage was very limited ... winds were BRIEFLY 301 mph ... use common sense ... just a few homes other than the elementary school ...

Look it up yourself if you don't believe me ...

"IF there weren't any mobile home parks, THEN there wouldn't be tornadoes" ...

are you suggesting he didn't present the facts from the supposed experts? You're confusing what he wrote.

 

[ding]

Not without picking through the rubble to determine whether the house had storm bracing.

So you don't believe that it is common for modern braced roofs to ever come off? Come on, man.

 

[ding]

Exactly. He worked with insurance companies to find these jobs.

My point is that we have insurance to protect against extreme weather events so that they don't need to design homes to withstand hurricanes and tornadoes which BTW isn't really even possible or an option.

 

[ReinyDays]

are you suggesting he didn't present the facts from the supposed experts? You're confusing what he wrote.

He copy/pasted from Wikipeda ... but go ahead ... ask an expert about "no roof, walls standing" ...

Fujita scale - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[jc456]

He copy/pasted from Wikipeda ... but go ahead ... ask an expert about "no roof, walls standing" ...

Fujita scale - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

He never said anything about walls, he stated wind records

 

[Woodznutz]

So you don't believe that it is common for modern braced roofs to ever come off? Come on, man.

Anything is possible.

 

[Woodznutz]

My point is that we have insurance to protect against extreme weather events so that they don't need to design homes to withstand hurricanes and tornadoes which BTW isn't really even possible or an option.

Insurance (can) cover losses but only after the losses occur.

My whole point is that structures can be made more durable without much extra cost. Flooding causes more damage than wind events. A lady was on the news last evening in front of her home which was built on stilts. The entire neighborhood was flooded including houses built conventionally. She was happy that her home was unharmed but lamented the widespread damage to others.

 

[jc456]

Insurance (can) cover losses but only after the losses occur.

My whole point is that structures can be made more durable without much extra cost. Flooding causes more damage than wind events. A lady was on the news last evening in front of her home which was built on stilts. The entire neighborhood was flooded including houses built conventionally. She was happy that her home was unharmed but lamented the widespread damage to others.

And I stated do you have those structures designed? You keep bailing while continuing to say it

 

[ding]

Anything is possible.

You do realize you can look this stuff up, right? They don't make distinctions between braced roofs and unbraced roofs when they state the wind speed that will rip off roofs and knocks down walls.

 

[ding]

Insurance (can) cover losses but only after the losses occur.

My whole point is that structures can be made more durable without much extra cost. Flooding causes more damage than wind events. A lady was on the news last evening in front of her home which was built on stilts. The entire neighborhood was flooded including houses built conventionally. She was happy that her home was unharmed but lamented the widespread damage to others.

Seems like you are changing arguments. Sure people shouldn't build in flood zones and if they do they should put their houses on stilts. That doesn't have anything to do with your point that structures can be made more durable without much extra cost. Do you have an example of making structures that can be made more durable without much extra cost that doesn't involve building houses in flood plains?

 

[Woodznutz]

Seems like you are changing arguments. Sure people shouldn't build in flood zones and if they do they should put their houses on stilts. That doesn't have anything to do with your point that structures can be made more durable without much extra cost. Do you have an example of making structures that can be made more durable without much extra cost that doesn't involve building houses in flood plains?

My overall position is that homes should be better able to withstand all adverse weather conditions, including floods.

 

[Woodznutz]

My overall position is that homes should be better able to withstand all adverse weather conditions, including floods.

Building a Stronger, Safer Home - Design Basics

As a nation, we can build better homes. And, one definition of "better" is stronger and safer!

www.designbasics.com