In article , "Pete C." wrote:
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.

Tyvek is a few thousandths of inch thick; vinyl siding is thicker by far. And
the area of the damaged siding is many times larger than the area of the
damaged 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.

You have *no* evidence, just assumptions.

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.

And that nail *must* have pierced an electrical cable and started a fire, or
you wouldn't have any justification at all for your assumptions.



* 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?

Charred wood would do it for me.

The evidence of a significant heat
source having been present within that wall is quite clear.

Garbage. There is no evidence whatsoever of any heat source inside that wall,
significant or otherwise. You have *assumed* an interior heat source from the
beginning, and searched for evidence to support that assumption, instead of
looking at the evidence and following where it leads.

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.

There's no evidence whatever that there ever was any such 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.

Reading comprehension again, Pete...


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

Liar. You stated that there was no discoloration.

(due to the monitor issue)

That only came later -- after you could no longer continue to deny, even to
yourself, that there was any discoloration present.

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.

There isn't anything wrong with my reading comprehension here, Petey.


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

"without discoloring the back side"

Misquoting doesn't help your loosing argument.

That's an exact, direct quote.

BTW -- it's spelled "losing". Moron.



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

You denied that any discoloration existed, and called me a moron for stating
that it did.

in no way changes my conclusion of the likely cause of the damage based on
all the evidence we have available.

Only because your mind is already made up, and you're not willing to listen to
anything to the contrary.


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

You haven't pointed out any evidence, just assumptions.

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.

That's because I have *never* stated that this was caused by an external heat
source. I have maintained all along that the cause is solvent exposure.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.