Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "Pete C." wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "Pete C."
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

*What* signs?

* More damage to the Tyvek wrap than the siding.

Have you actually looked at the photos?

A number of times.

And yet you claim that there's more damage to the Tyvek than to the siding.
Amazing.

Are there holes in the siding? There are in the Tyvek.



* Extra nail visible in the sheathing in the suspect area.

Yep, nails start invisible fires all the time.

They damage wiring, create shorts and start fires with some regularity.
Indeed that is the reason for code requirements regarding stapling
wiring back from the edges of the studs and the use of metal nail
protection plates at locations where wiring passes through studs close
to the edge.

And because of *one*nail* you assume a fire. Amazing.

No, I assess there is a probability of a fire inside the wall based on
all of the evidence. The nail which is clearly located close to a known
electrical box position and is clearly redundant with the one an inch or
two away from it is only one piece of evidence that supports that
theory.



* Four electrical boxes surrounding the suspect area.

And yet *no* evidence of any electrical fires visible anywhere.

Apparently none that you are able to realize.

None that you can recognize either -- it's not there.

What evidence would you have to see for you to believe that there may
have been a fire within that wall? The evidence of a significant heat
source having been present within that wall is quite clear. A fire is
the only likely source for such heat within the wall. An electrical
fault is the most probably initiator of such a fire.


Look, I'm not saying that he absolutely shouldn't open up the wall -- just
saying that he should look at the back side of the vinyl siding first, which
he does not appear to have done. Somebody asked him a couple days ago what the
back side of it looked like; as far as I can tell, he hasn't answered that
question yet.

And I've noted that looking at the back of the siding is not likely to
show any discoloration since it was not exposed to direct flame, it was
exposed to moderate heat, heat that will deform the vinyl siding well
before it discolors it.

Still waiting for your explanation of how your magic heat source discolors the
vinyl siding on the surface *away* from the heat, but not on the surface *toward* it...

I never made any such claim. You are the only one who ever suggested
there would be discoloration on the siding.

False. You wrote:

True. I never once claimed there was any discoloration on the siding.

Oh, my, there's your reading comprehension problem again.

Apparently, if you claim I ever indicated there was discoloration prior
to my discovery of the LCD monitor issue.


I said I was still waiting for your explanation of how an internal heat source
discolors the siding on the surface away from the heat -- discoloration
plainly visible in the OP's original photo, which even you now admit to being
able to see -- without discoloring the back side of the siding.

You said you never made any such claim.

And that's a lie. You did make *exactly* that claim when you wrote this:

"Heat coming through the sheathing could very
easily build to the level required to soften and deform the vinyl siding
without discoloring the back side."

because the siding in question -- in addition to being softened and deformed
-- is also quite plainly discolored. Badly.

Your reading comprehension problem again. I apparently should have
stated "without discoloring either side" to match your limited
comprehension. Since I had already stated that I didn't see
discoloration on the outside (due to the monitor issue) I presumed your
reading comprehension was sufficient to understand that my statement
should not be construed to indicate there would be discoloration on the
outside, but not the inside.


I clearly state "soften and deform", and nowhere state "discolor".

"without discoloring the back side"

Misquoting doesn't help your loosing argument.



The siding is visibly discolored; no suggestion is necessary. And I was not
the first to suggest that the OP should check for discoloration on the back
side, either.

Looking at the photo again on a system with a CRT monitor, it does
appear that there is some discoloration.

I assume this means I'll be seeing an apology from you sometime soon.

No, you won't. My not seeing the discoloration due to a monitor issue in
no way changes my conclusion of the likely cause of the damage based on
all the evidence we have available.


In that case I would expect
comparable discoloration on the back side of the siding as well. My
assessment of the likely cause remains unchanged.

In other words, you've already made up your mind, and won't be swayed by
anything as mundane as actual facts, because that would mean that your
assumptions were wrong.

You are the one who refuses to revisit the evidence I have pointed out
and review your conclusions. You have provided no explanation for how
the external heat source you have fixated on could cause the damage in
the areas I have noted.

Pete C.