Edwards has to be mistaken in that he thinks the tanker lofting was the sole EF5 indicator. He stated in his tweet “EF5 may still be valid.” Being retired from the SPC, he may have not read the PNS in its entirety, or he’s purposely being controversial/contrarian to just debate online.I didn't explicitly state this, I believe another user did. I'm pretty sure the lofting feat technically requires higher windspeeds (that's the >266 MPH calc), but the tipping of the full cars still requires >230 MPH winds to accomplish. AKA, it's an EF5 regardless, and the only thing that this rolling may end up changing is the NWS's unofficial >266 MPH estimate for the winds.
I suppose I find it particularly hard to believe that the train was rolled when we can clearly see the drag marks that the other cars impacted the landscape with. If it was really rolled, there would be large dents in the surface that indicate it was making multiple impacts with the ground. That isn't there, there's no drag marks from wheels either, and due to the geometry of this thing I feel like a "smooth roll" is simply not possible. I'm guessing they also checked the car to see if there was caked up mud on it from rolling - seems like a natural thing to look for. I suppose that's something I'd like to see confirmation on but I haven't seen close up imagery of the thrown train car.
EDIT: There seems to be some impact marks actually, didn't look into the tweet until now. Interesting. I still believe the final stretch indicates lofting though.
In true Twitter fashion, it’s turned into a sh*tshow. Yes, he got some ridiculous replies, but You can’t say “show me evidence” and then immediately start dismissing most responses when people do. I read the thread, and while there were a few idiots, most of the responses were sound and in good faith.