Kilns were made of stone and brick yet survived molten metal. The trick is to dry the stone and brick before exposing them to high temperatures. The cracking and splintering is a result of moisture within the masonry expanding rapidly as it turns to steam. Fires occur mostly within buildings where the masonry gets a chance to dry out so theres little risk of the masonry shattering. Burning timbers falling outside a building present a greater risk of damage - but these are more easily doused before the masonry gets hot (masonry at high level excepted).
More modern buildings, perversely, are at greater risk because they use thinner masonry and need metal ties which expand and open joints.
The Head of Heritage was saying on TF1 earlier that the Companies of Masons, Glaziers and Carpentry will start to look at how the restoration can be done, and will have to factor in that, given their numbers are far fewer these days, they can not just draw everybody in to the Notre Dame site and leave the rest of France without coverage.
Another difficulty, he said, was the main beams came from giant trees that were growing in the area. Such trees no longer exist.
Have no doubt they’ll make a bloody good fist of the restoration.
I used to buy antique hand crafted ancient metal work from France. I once asked a retired English professor why the French were so good at making it, and why did they always go that bit extra to make the best designed but simple style street metalwork in Europe. He put his eyes upwards and said: They have always had a very strong monastic base, each Church or Cathedral had its own blacksmith shop and many still do, it is therefore in their blood!
Like Windsor Castle, Notre Dame will be rebuilt as if the fire never happened, it will take years, but they will do it right.
I see your point but perhaps the medieval wiring needed replacing. We tend to forget that all manmade objects are really works in progress with refurbishment and modernisation a continuous task.
The question is whether it will be rebuilt in the original manner or will it be sufficient just to make it identical in appearance. I know of a Grade 1 listed building that wouldn't have achieved its listing had the authorities known that the "rare" faience was actually fibre glass (secretly replaced some years earlier). If it is to be rebuilt in the original manner, it'll take 20 years longer than the original due to the apprenticeships needed for long-lost trades. Or will it be acceptable to machine-saw the replacement stone and bend lead regulations when it comes to reglazing and roofing?