The quote you posted said investigators think an electrical short. Maybe it was.
But since they were working of the roof, sealing and water proofing ect they could be using torchdown method. Do you know what I mean by that?
It’s where you use liquid rubber and roll and heated with a torch so it bonds to material you want to water proof.
The fact you think Notre Dame has(d) an asphalt roof is the funniest part.
It’s not just used for asphalt. How many years of building have to done…what have you built? which way does water flow? How do you do dry ins? Come on. Tell me your building knowledge, materials you worked with…hell post pictures of what you built.
Go ahead…make a fool out of me if you can.
Enough sense to know Notre Dame doesn’t have a ■■■■■■■ asphalt roof 
The roof was lead sheathing over wood. Where the lead roofing is penetrated by flues or structure (such as the central spire where the fire started) it is sealed with molten lead and/or melted tar. Both are a potential source of ignition of the dry wood structure.
And they had very strict fire protection policies implemented during the recent renovation, and it was the original oak/lead roof that was being restored; but I admire your attempt at carrying water for Conan’s silly “torch down at sunset” theory like this was some random office building.
I’m not carrying any water for anyone. The fire started in the area where they were working. Hot lead and the heaters used to melt lead and tar are all possible sources of the fire. So is the electrical power source for the heaters. All it would take is for some hot lead to drip and collect in an area where the workers could not see where it would hold its heat long enough to get that old dry wood to begin to produce an ember that eventually grew into flames. it could have taken hours for that to occur … like a glowing cigarette in a couch cushion.
So not a “torchdown” on a historic oak roof, which would be incredibly stupid. Gotcha!
Where have I said anything about a “torchdown”?
You are the one jumping into conversations, not my fault you are lost
Jumping into the conversation? I have been here from the beginning and this is an open forum.
Why are you so focused on the word “torchdown”? There are many possible sources of heat in a roofing project that could have accidently caused the fire. Are you trying to suggest that because the roof was not asphalt that it must have been arson?
Still not a torchdown, and yes, I know you are confused.
Precisely…now I’ve not very familiar with molten lead but now that you mention is…I can see how it can be used.
Oak lead roof? How did they keep the areas where spiral structure penetrated though the lead roof from leaking?
No, its you who is confused. I have never used the term “torchdown.”
State your experience.
I have. Ask him what cricket roof is or hog valley. 
Was roofing work being done at the time of the fire? I hadn’t heard that.
You are right about the lead roof, it’s part of the reason they had trouble fighting the fire. They couldn’t get water on the wood structure until the roofing had been compromised.
There was a very good article in the NYT about the fire that included a 3D model of the building. Did you see it?
Still not a torchdown. Sorry buddy.
Yes, they were working around the base of the spire where it penetrates the roof.
No, I have not seen the NYT article or the model.
