The tree damage at cambridge shores most certainly stacks up against other EF5's such as Hackleburg. I've sent multiple examples and the tree damage to hardwoods looks almost the same. I think at this point you're choosing to ignore the evidence. The home in Bremen was well anchored, multiple survey teams were there and said it was. Ashby wasn't an EF5 because nothing really looked EF5. The debris was still near the home, and although there was debarking it wasnt really "high end". Looked pretty standard EF4 170 mph.Wrong. The Bremen home was a CMU perimeter with a gravel fill inside of it, which had an apparently unanchored slab layered on top, which the house was built on. That is weird, weird construction and not equivalent to a poured concrete foundation. Having just a portion of the foundation being slab does not make it EF5 worthy either. It has to be the whole slab.
Regarding the context in Cambridge Shores, you’re seeing things at this point. That tree damage does not stack up to past EF5s, and there was no significant debris granulation. Significant granulation reduced the pieces smaller than the palm of your hand. It does not cut it for EF5, period. There WAS legit granulation in Bremen though.
You’re confident and mostly on the right track, but still getting quite a bit wrong. I’d suggest that you take a step back and ask yourself if you’d rather dig your heels in, or rethink your stance when presented with new info, and I can tell which of those two is best for people who are willing to learn, but the rest is up to you.
As Ive said I applaud you for taking a stance despite all other information strongly discrediting your opinions. With that said have a great day and glad you enjoyed the article.