He needs karma! He's not only a Software Engineer, but Lockheed Martin Ex-Employee with Security Clearance, a Trumpet Player, and a Mechanical Engineer!
Ex-Lockheed Martin employee with secret clearance here. The computers that handle classified information are not connected to the internet at all (generally. There are some computers, which aren't connected to the other computers in the room, with really-really-strongly-encrypted network connections to allow remote sites to videoconference and share data). This means you have to actually get into the room to get access to the data, you can't hack them. You aren't allowed to bring your cell phones into the classified area either, so you are truly isolated from the outside world. There are no windows in the classified areas, so it's all to easy to be in there for hours and completely lose track of the time.
As to why I'm not going to tell you any of the classified data that I know, rather than there being no practical reason other than "secrecy" to classified data, in general it's very obvious that the data that is classified is critical to security. It's not done on a whim where someone can just come out and expose the data, it's done very intentionally because it's dangerous. Put it this way: classified data is the US government's playbook. You really would have to want to see the country burn before, as a player, you publish the playbook for the other team. And by watch it burn, I mean have people you know die.
This is why the Snowden thing was so interesting - although he's essentially in exile forever, so it's not like there were no consequences, he was very smart about what he did. The classified data he leaked was of the nature that it was more dangerous to keep it secret than to publish it (OK, so now we all know we're being spied on, but it's not like anyone dies with this knowledge out there). He hand-crafted this to be true, cherry-picking the data that could be released to indicate how much surveillance was happening without, for instance, exposing the names of any NSA agents. That is not even possible with much of the classified data that exists.
Mechanical engineer here. I'm not aware of any material that withstands bending stress better than compressive stress, though it's possible that exotic shapes can be used for this purpose - shapes matter in stress because cross sectional area is a part of the definition of stress.
When you bend an object, it's important to understand that you are really applying tension. Most materials are weaker in tension than compression, the classic example being concrete. The tension comes about in this way: Imagine an i-beam in the "I" and not the H orientation supported by pins on each side (they hold it up but don't resist torque) and a weight placed in the middle. Further picture the i-beam as being made of a bunch of fibers instead of a solid piece, like it were made out of dried spaghetti. The weight causes the beam to bow down; the fibers on the top side will be compressed, and on the bottom they will be stretched, in the middle the magnitude of forces will reduce linearly to the center, with the exact center being not stressed at all. This is actually why an i-beam is that shape: there is more material on the outside where the forces are greater, which reduces the stress there (more material means less force per area).
Since most materials are weaker in tension, you would expect that the area of highest tension would break first. Indeed, an i-beam loaded in this way will fail first at the point where the web (center part) meets the horizontal bottom - this is the location of highest stress.
If you wanted a shape that is stronger in bending than in compression, you would make something like an inside out I-beam, let's call it a + beam. The material in the horizontal fat part in the middle would help withstand the compression, but the thin part way to the outside would be easier to stress and break.
Trumpet player here. It's almost assuredly a trumpet. Let's do some explaining of how I know this to turn this into an explain question.
Trumpets are what are known as cylindrical bore brass instruments, whereas flugelhorns and cornets are conical bore. What this means is that a trumpet's tubing will be the same diameter from just past the mouthpiece, through all the bends and valves, up to the beginning of the bell taper. Flugelhorns have an increasing diameter as you progress through the instrument.
The result of this difference is that trumpets sound "brighter", "bolder", and "brassier", whereas flugelhorns are "rounder" or "smoother". For fanfares like the Indiana Jones theme, you really want to use a trumpet to get the right effect, a flugelhorn would make that theme sound like smooth jazz.
For a comparison, here is a YouTube video of a guy playing them side-by-side.
If I had to guess why it doesn't quite sound like a trumpet to you, it's likely because there are multiple trumpet players playing the theme in unison - it's not a solo. The slight differences in intonation, pitch, and interpretation between players will make it sound slightly different than a solo rendition. Also, by the way: the underlying rhythmic part under the fanfare ("bum.... bumbumbum") is being done by stopped french horns and trombones (and tympani and cello and bass, but those aren't brass instruments).