However, the claim was that the wing was perfectly uniformly strong and would fail along its entire extent. I claim it will fail in one location.

No, the claim was =not= that it was perfectly uniformly strong.
The claim was that the strength varied along the length with the
expected loads, so that a failure would be (roughly) equally likely
anywhere along the wing. "Perfection" was not claimed, just "pretty close".

The video =I= saw showed the wing seem to snap at all places at once.
I'm sure slowed-down photography would show a first break and a second
break and all, but it did seem to just explode along its entire length.

Yes, I saw the bent spar.
Then you saw the point failure which I claim is how a wing will always fail.

Yes. This is different from the video I saw (which BTW did not show an
"after" picture where such a failure point would be seen anyway).

Maybe you're right. I'm not an engineer. It just seemed very close.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.