Bomb-Proof Wallpaper Developed 388
MikeChino writes "Working in partnership with the US Army Corp of Engineers, Berry Plastics has rolled out a new breed of bomb-proof wallpaper. Dubbed the X-Flex Blast Protection System, the wallpaper is so effective that a single layer can keep a wrecking ball from smashing through a brick wall, and a double layer can stop blunt objects (i.e. a flying 2×4) from knocking down drywall. According to its designers, covering an entire room takes less than an hour."
That's cool! (Score:5, Funny)
But will it blend?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Idle? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Idle? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems like this would be a best seller in tornado alley.
Re:Go big or lose your wall (Score:5, Insightful)
Come on guys - it's physics.
This material is great in tension - that's it. If you 'bend' a material, the surface closest the the force goes into compression, and the surface away from the force goes into tension. How do you strengthen a wall? Increase the compressive strength of the surface closest outside, or increase the tensile strength of the surface on the inside. Put this stuff on the inside, smack the outside with a wreaking ball, and whatdoyouknow - the wall stands up.
I'm not saying that this isn't cool, but it's not unique - thinking composite materials here. Laminated glass does this kind of thing easily for example, when using the right kinds of laminates.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The videos clearly show that it isn't useful for keeping structure intact.
I disagree. The videos show me that the main failure mode of masonry walls is by 'folding' when the joins between blocks separate. This sheeting is very strong in tension, apparently, and prevents the block joints from opening to the point of causing the wall to tumble. I assume the results from a bomb overpressure wave would be similar to those from the wrecking ball.
Didn't they feature a similar experiment of one of those "Mythbuste
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Or just wrap the wrecking ball in this stuff, for safety purposes.
Re:Idle? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Idle? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the editors are trying to scam you into thinking Idle isn't the craphole it really is.
Re:Idle? (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably because it was a nearly content-free "article" that had a short video clip of some shit getting smashed. Not complaining. It's a huge improvement for "idle"... but there it is.
However, I seriously doubt that this material would actually protect a house from much. The impact from the wrecking ball broke the brick, and the "paper" held it together. But what happens when you put a roof on, and you set up the bomb? First, your doors and windows are still just as fragile... and if the impact is as strong as the wrecking ball, the entire front of the house loses structural integrity, and caves in. Suddenly, the roof doesn't have enough support, so down it comes on your head.
Re:Idle? AYB. (Score:5, Funny)
Well, that's obvious and it was explained all over the internet, several years ago.You have no chance to survive. Make your time.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
All your wallpaper are belong to us.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Better yet, the armoured wallpaper makes it impossible for rescuers to dig you out, or air to get in.
Re:missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
So exactly where on earth can you live where none of the following occur:
Re:Idle? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
how flexible is it? (Score:4, Funny)
i think i need underpants made out of this stuff.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
i think i need underpants made out of this stuff.
To keep traffic from coming in or going out?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Now just need a bomb-proof wallpaper for windows (Score:2, Funny)
Might reduce the BSOD freq.
Kevlar (Score:4, Insightful)
It looks like it's just self-stick Kevlar. So it's going to be hideously expensive. However, maybe the Army overpaying for it will help them find advanced production methods to cut costs and benefit us in the long run. But then what? Possible uses: line car gas/hydrogen tanks with it. But aside from that and protecting masonry walls from disintegrating in an explosion, I can't see any practical use. As a commenter on the article site said, what if this is a load bearing wall? Looks like it would just fold up and take the building with it. Great, no shrapnel, I get it. But as cool a future would be where every building is bomb proof, I don't see it happening before a nanotech alternative that's self-healing and much better at linear support.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But as cool a future would be where every building is bomb proof, ...
Then they'll just make bigger bombs. If Greek and Roman armies never used leather and chain mail armor, people would still (?) be robbing liquor stores with bows and arrows.
Re:Kevlar (Score:5, Interesting)
As for the other thing, that's the whole idea: better armor makes them develop bigger bombs. That is a back-and-forth that has been going on for centuries.
Re: (Score:2)
Mail [wikipedia.org] armor isn't plate - though it usually goes with and supplements plate armor. Though, yea - leather armor would be mostly useless regarding bows.
Re:Kevlar (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Kevlar (Score:4, Interesting)
So some groups started attaching plates to their mail in front, in order to better deflect the arrows. (And other blows: they then realized that plates tended to spread the impact of other weapons as well, minimizing injury.) Plates worked so well that a few groups got the idea that covering the whole body in plates would make the ultimate warrior. And indeed, from s defensive standpoint, plate armor withstood sword blows and thrusts and also arrows much better than any of the older stuff did.
Henceforth, the elite classes would wear plate armor, and the lower classes would use mail or leather or lesser forms of armor. But the only time when mail and plate were commonly used together (i.e., large quantities of both plate and mail), was in that earlier, intermediate period when plates were added to mail as an add-on, as it were.
This is definitely not intended as a complete history, but a brief summary and generalization. Still, the main point is that among other things, the bow and arrow drove the change from mail to plate armor, and then, with the development of the longbow, made that obsolete as well.
Amazing what can be done with some bent pieces of wood.
Re:Kevlar (Score:4, Informative)
This, also, is misleading. Some of the most spectacular remaining samples and artwork of armor are plate, but are for _jousting_. Like modern bomb-proof armor, what is worn for such a specialized use is far bulkier, more expensive, and heavier than actual combat armor. And even the best plate was often supplemented at joints such as knees and elbows and hands, with chain where making joints out of plate would be too awkward or expensive.
Also, the better plate of the Middle ages was certainly capable of stopping the ordinary "clothyard shaft" of the longbow. The tips of the clothyard shaft were typically rather soft, inexpensive steel: it _flattens_, bends, and glances off with even a quite direct hit on a good quality breast plate or helmet. (Yes, I've seen this tried.)
It is misleading to say "the bow and arrow drove the change" when the bow and arrow predate civilizaiton: plate armor does not. Other factors include the introduction of the _inexpensive_ long bow: the price of a single armored knight was easily undercut by the price of 20 farm boys with bows, and they could produce an arrow storm that would not only kill the knight's less armored steed, but was likely to put clothyard shafts in his joints. Couple that with a muddy field where a knight's boots and heavy armor will bog down, such as occurred at Agincourt, and the yeomen with daggers could easily beat the French knights to death, force their visors into the mud to drown, and shove daggers into their eye slits.
The concept of "plate" long predates the middle ages, remember: even the Greeks and wealthiest Egyptins had breast plates or bronze, quite effective against the weapons of their time. Their efforts were limited by weight and the strength of the metal, but it was certainly the ancestor of "plate".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"
This is definitely not intended as a complete history, but a brief summary and generalization. Still, the main point is that among other things, the bow and arrow drove the change from mail to plate armor, and then, with the development of the longbow, made that obsolete as well."
Uh, no. If anything, the price of plate mail, combined with gunpowder, made it obsolete. At Agincourt, the longbow shots were used to bog down the French knights in plate mail (and to score the occasional hit through an eye slit a
Re:Kevlar (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not that simple, different arrow heads were effective against different armour types, this is why sometimes chain was worn with plate.
Arrows with thin, pointed heads (bodkin arrows) were more effective against chain mail armour because they could pierce between the links and split them much more effectively than wide edged broadhead arrows could.
In contrast, bodkins weren't terribly effective against plate - not so much because of the shape, but because they were rarely hardened. Whilst hardened broadheads fired from longbows could penetrate plante they were far from the death's knell of plate, hence why the Spanish conquistadors in South America were plenty happy to use it still despite the natives being extremely skilled archers having indepently created longbows.
The real death's knell for plate was the spread of firearms, something the native people of South America did not generally have (they had looted weapons and such but not widespread) as a weapon to fight back against the conquistadors.
Even certain silk armour was popular in some parts of the world, because it didn't tear when hit by a broadhead and so the silk could be used to remove the head preventing infection from the arrow head. It would sometimes be used under chain, plate or both.
Really, it's just not as simple as longbow beats plate, the only weapon to successfully have a long reign against pretty much all types of personal body armour has been the firearm until the invention of kevlar.
Re:Kevlar (Score:4, Informative)
While I am not "calling bullshit", as it were, I find the story of the silk armor to be a bit incredible. I am pretty familiar with silk and its properties. I am not saying it was not popular, or that there were not stories, but I seriously question the effectiveness of any quantity of silk that anyone but a "noble born" could afford, as armor.
What I can say with authority, however, is that kevlar, by itself, is not and has never been particularly effective against "firearms" in general. It can prevent the penetration of certain handgun rounds, but by no means all, and still allows considerable damage to the wearer. For the most part kevlar vests were worn by law enforcement and the military to reduce damage, not prevent it. Even for the handgun calibers that kevlar would normally stop, pointy jacketed and/or hardened slugs can still penetrate kevlar like butter. Even relatively low-power rifles will punch straight through a kevlar vest.
However, the combination of kevlar and high-tech ceramics ("Dragon Skin" is probably the best example) can withstand a hit from a relatively high-powered rifle, and with relatively little damage to the wearer. Especially if some of the newer aramid-type fibers are used instead of kevlar. But those developments are VERY recent... no more than a few years.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, having looked this up again (I hadn't for some time), I will have to back down from my position that the longbow killed plate armor. But the longbow did demonstrate that it was no longer the panacea it had been (as at Agincourt and other examples), and it gradually faded starting about then, through the advent of early firearms, and basically died in the form of full-body armor not long after.
You're at least closer to right, and for that at least, I'm happy. You're still getting your cause and effect mixed up (plate being a panacea that longbows cured, given that ... it was the other way around, in terms of invention dates). And that Agincourt was bad leadership + mud + arrows, not just arrows. Arrows are artillery - They pin you down, break charges, break morale, etc. They're damned useful, but plate was great protection against them as actual damage dealers.
I mean, really. Read the actual d
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard of steppe nomads - mongols or huns - using silk armour. Supposedly it snags on the arrow and wraps round it, making it easier to pull out.
But the person you're replying to is making the mistake of confusing bow and longbow.
Steppe people would, at least to begin with, fight against other steppe people. Their weapon systems were optimised accordingly. A longbow wouldn't be much use to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, my point with kevlar is not that it mitigates firearms completely, but that up until that point, if someone shot you, you'd almost certainly become combat ineffective for probably the rest of whatever war you're fighting. The introduction of kevlar did at least open the door for many more troops to be back out and fighting anything from straight away or to just a few days. The point is the firearm was no longer something that could just masacre troops en-masse quite like it could used to in in the pre-
Re: (Score:2)
Further, plate was not as heavy as you'd believe - The combination of the two was not enough to actually slow a trained knight down, except in terms of long term stamina.
How did I miss this one earlier, wow?
Re: (Score:2)
I think if you do some research you will find that the overwhelming consensus of historians (and even that is a bit of an understatement) agree that it was the longbow that made plate armor obsolete.
I'm just sayin'... you can look it up yourself.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No I agree. Longbows made armoured knights obsolete.
The Battle of Agincourt showed how effective longbows were vs plate.
But in hand-to-hand combat, plate's weakness was a concussion weapon.
And my original point in posting was that felt plus chain was sufficient to protect against most arrows.
Sorry I came in in the middle of the argument.
and every foot-soldier wore a vest of thick felt and a coat of mail so dense and strong that our arrows made no impression on them. They shot at us with their great arbalis
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's one of those "Yes, but..." things. It has to be taken in context. Yes, plate armor was vulnerable to "denting" weapons. If your armor was crushed around you, you could be disabled even if you were not particularly injured.
But that has to be compared to the protection that mail armor offered against crushing weapons... which was virtually none. Your armor would not be crushed around you, you would just be crushed instead. So
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also: The best way to defeat a well armored foe was not an impact weapon - felt and padding under the maille and plate stopped most of the damage - but stuff like http://www.crazywolffarms.com/images/pollaxe_1_.jpg [crazywolffarms.com] that bad boy
Re:Felt (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean. This is why swords were *commonly thought* to weigh 40 pounds. No, I'm not kidding. Unless they were experts on the matter (And by that, I mean, has read fecthbucher and first hand accounts, which do still exist and bear me out), I'd be just as willing to call BS on them.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I think if you do some research you will find that the overwhelming consensus of historians (and even that is a bit of an understatement) agree that it was the longbow that made plate armor obsolete.
I'm just sayin'... you can look it up yourself.
I did [wikipedia.org]:
Re: (Score:2)
The arabs didn't use longbows. Their bows were intended for use from horseback and were relatively weak. There's a account of a Norman knight hit by an arrow from a Welsh longbow, it went through his armour, his leg, the saddle and killed his horse.
Re: (Score:2)
This was mostly not the case. Plate, when taken care of, was very good protection against the longbow. If you didn't take care of it, then shoddy worksmanship would allow it to be pierced in some spots, and of course there were still the joints and such that could be penetrated. (Though, even maille isn't that bad of protection against arrows, either. Bolts, on the other hand, would pierce maille... And plate, at very close distance, and with some luck. So, freak
Re: (Score:2)
Though, and this is admittedly a nitpick and only mostly true - After plate was around, shields mostly went out
Re: (Score:2)
Um, you might want to check your history again. The longbow was the weapon that made plate body armor obsolete.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Longbows and full steel platemail developed around the same time ~1200's and stayed in fashion until about the 1600's, when the bows were being replaced by guns and plate mail fell out of favour. Note however that platemail protecting the the torso was still popular for cavalry at the time of Frederick II and Napoleon. So platemail lived 400 years together with longbows and outlived bows as an implement of war by another 200, makin
Re:Kevlar (Score:5, Informative)
Um, you might want to check your history again. The longbow was the weapon that made plate body armor obsolete.
Actually it wasn't. Plate armor was widely used in Europe after the Battle of Agincourt in 1415; arguably it gained in popularity.
It was very difficult to pierce plate with a longbow. The English victory at Agincourt is more due to the terrain than anything else; arguably plalte became even more popular after Agincourt, precisely because it offered reasonable protection against arrows. (Protecting horses etc. was another matter.) The crossbow did a much better job against plate armor. It delivered more kinetic energy, and it took much less time to train a crossbowman than a longbowman. Firearms did the rest in the 15th and 16 century. The single most driving factor, however, was cost - plate armor was too expensive to make and maintain, and if you can hire a whole squad of Landsknechts (arquebusiers, what have you) for the same money it takes to have plate armor made for yourself, the arquebusiers win. At that point, however, longbows had already been obsolete for more than a century.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought the main reason was that it takes years to train a longbowman and minutes to train a musketeer?
Rate of fire, accuracy, and distance were all superior for a longbow, the training and strength required to draw one was a biproduct of a very specific lifestyle that only existed for a short period of time historically.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You forgot the apostrophe in "tornado's",
Depends how it's built... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Possible uses: line car gas/hydrogen tanks with it. But aside from that and protecting masonry walls from disintegrating in an explosion, I can't see any practical use.
Dude, you just listed two very practical uses for it! ^^
I thing wrapping it around anything that might explode sounds like a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
I've ordered some for my 3 year old's bedroom.
Forget bombs, think hurricanes and tornados! (Score:4, Interesting)
If this can stop projectiles from penetrating the wall, then think about the protection it could offer from tornados and hurricanes. Obviously not a direct hit, since there'd be far more structural damage, but how much of that damage caused by flying debris could be mitigated. At the very least, the protection it could offer for occupants.
Re:Forget bombs, think hurricanes and tornados! (Score:4, Informative)
Really, it's useless for hurricanes, aside from in places where people wouldn't be prepared for a hurricane anyway.
At the very least, Florida's building code is such that, for anything built in the last 17 years (at least - I know the standards were strengthened after Andrew), the wind causing impacts is not what does damage - Aside from to windows. It's the the wind speed and pressure differences that destroy roofs and cause structural damage, and flooding that causes the most damage, really.
Whoo, being a Floridian does have it's uses.
Re:Forget bombs, think hurricanes and tornados! (Score:5, Insightful)
What raises the roof is simply the shape of the roof. It causes lift that pulls it off the house. (Yes, that is a pressure differential, but not in the sense most people mean.) It is not interior pressure blowing the roof off, nor massive negative pressure outside "sucking" the roof off. It is simple aerodynamic lift.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Forget bombs, think hurricanes and tornados! (Score:4, Informative)
This seems to be a common misconception, probably due to it being taught badly in schools. Taking an aeroplane as a specific example since this is the most common example of lift. You will find that the Bernoulli effect (the lift generated by a pressure difference above and below the wing) is not the main reason why planes fly (although the effect does exist, it is just not a large enough force to keep a plane up).
What demonstrate this most clearly are symmetrical winged aeroplanes which are things like stunt planes which often fly upside down. It should be evident from the fact the wing is symmetrical that the common explanation of lower pressure above because air goes around a curve making it go faster has zero effect here.
If you have paid attention carefully when flying you may have noticed that a plane does not fly completely flat most of the time. There is a small angle between the planes wings and the direction of travel. Because air tends to follow the surface of the wing (sometimes called the Coanda effect) this means that the air gets deflected downwards by the wing. If the air accelerates down then by Newton's laws there is an equal and opposite force upwards on the plane generating lift so it can then fly.
I have not read anything about how houses are affected but I would imagine it would be a similar effect with the roof deflecting air causing a force.
Re:Forget bombs, think hurricanes and tornados! (Score:4, Interesting)
For one thing, hard-science experiments and calculations involving the Bernoulli effect over curved surfaces were what allowed the Wright brothers to be the first in powered flight. This is firmly established in history.
On the other hand, what you say is true, in that symmetrical wing plans can still achieve lift. However (as you point out) not when completely horizontal to the airflow.
So on the other, other hand, there is still measurable Bernoulli effect over a symmetrical wing, at any significant angle of attack.
I am not disagreeing with you, simply saying that as far as I know, this is not a decided issue. Yet.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is an issue that has been much debated, and to the best of my knowledge not yet firmly decided.
No, it is not an issue that has been debated. The practical aerodynamics of airfoils is very well settled.
If you have paid attention carefully when flying you may have noticed that a plane does not fly completely flat most of the time. There is a small angle between the planes wings and the direction of travel. Because air tends to follow the surface of the wing (sometimes called the Coanda effect) this means that the air gets deflected downwards by the wing. If the air accelerates down then by Newton's laws there is an equal and opposite force upwards on the plane generating lift so it can then fly.
1) This has little to do with the Coanda effect. 2) While there is momentum imparted onto the lower surface of a wing at a positive angle of attack, pressure distributions along the surfaces dominate the behavior of the airfoil. Air is slowing down when it follows the lower surface of a flat plate, and speeds up along the top, which gives (gasp) a pressure differential.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The reason for symmetrical wings on aerobatic aircraft is that they impede the flow even more and allow much greater control, at the expense of fuel efficiency.
You would think that wikipedia would agree with your assessment if you were correct, but no, no they don't. Have a read. [wikipedia.org]
Wallpaper anchored in demo (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it certainly looks interesting, but in the video the wallpaper was anchored very securely at the top and bottom of the test wall. I'd like to see how it does with only the sticky backing of the product itself keeping it on the wall.
Re:Wallpaper anchored in demo (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Informative indeed. That's a better video than the inhabitat web page, which leads one to believe you can just stick it on and keep a wrecking ball out of your living room.
Re:Wallpaper anchored in demo && not load (Score:2)
kind of an inside out airbag.
Wonder how a vehicle with this as a tensile skin would crash test? The body would become a safety cocoon.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is relatively old tech. 3M has been making a window film that's bomb proof for years. The problem is that the the window frame and the surrounding structure has to be able to take the load when the film is anchored to the frame.
http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/WF/3MWindowFilms/Solutions/Government/?PC_7_RJH9U5230GE3E02LECFTDQGG44_nid=R14R9R3CBCbeT4DCJBL6BVgl [3m.com]
Heck, two layers of ordinary mylar film stuck to a window are "bomb proof" - as long as you anchor them to something.
As for the commen
New department for demolitions firms (Score:5, Funny)
I just have to love any product that will require a whole new type of work for the demolitions industry - wallpaper remover! Would the job title be Interior Undecorator, or Interior Dedecorator?
Re: (Score:2)
Hehe ;-)
Demolition needs to attack the structure. Actually, I think this is a good thing for stopping flying debris so blasting demolition crews won't have to put their own layer of "wallpaper" around the building to stop flying debris, thus making the demolition easier and cheaper ;-))
Discovery channel beat them to it. (Score:5, Informative)
Rhino liner works great [rhinolinin...strial.com]
Desktop (Score:2)
I'm going to use this as wallpaper for my desktop. Does that now make my computer bomb-proof?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ask Larry Niven... (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe in the next movie, Superman (or "LL") could put in an order for condoms made out of this material. After all, it would certainly solve a lot of problems [rawbw.com].
Might not punch through, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
... you don't have to punch through a wall to otherwise destroy it. Even if this stuff stops a wrecking ball from breaking through a brick wall, can you imagine what kind of a shattered mess it will be in after force of the impact? It will still have be rebuilt from the ground up. The video in TFA demonstrates that: if that block wall had been a load-bearing wall, whatever big weight it was supporting would probably still come crashing down.
Re: (Score:2)
Watch that video again: the entire block wall ROCKS in reaction to the force of the impact. Now picture that rocking block wall with a load of many thousands of pounds sitting on it, pushing down from above; do you see why I'm skeptical? A vertical load placed on a wall that will be subjected to that abuse seems like a recipe for failure.
Hurricane alley (Score:2)
This stuff needs to be put in the walls of the homes out in hurricane alley. Tactical considerations are nice of course, but in your day-to-day those people could probably use it more. Especially since every so often 2x4s doing 250+ mph are thrown at their homes.
Fire fighter survival.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if you're aware, but many countries have lots of buildings that are basically brick or rock, including internal walls. Firefighters don't die more there than anywhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd imagine some places would have this put on interior walls as well; places where you would expect a lot of gunfire, such as police stations, military bases, public schools, and post offices.
Embed in concrete (Score:5, Insightful)
How about embedding kevlar-web in concrete? As a building technique generally. Earthquake resistance?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What if (Score:2)
Hmmmmm..... (Score:2)
Now they can start on that 'Bomb Proof' school desk that my parents hear so much about when they were kids.....
Wallpaper adhesive (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you can see in the video that the "wallpaper" is anchored to the floor and ceiling.
Perfect for Dorm Rooms! (Score:2)
(Both College and Military)
Could be useful in Israel (Score:2)
Esp in areas like Sderot which has been subjected to years of rocket fire from Gaza. I'm sure making houses more bomb proof would go over quite well. I live in Israel but not in Sderot, we actually have a bomb shelter in our house, but we use it as a storage closet.
Re: (Score:2)
The thousands of homes destroyed on the west bank in violation of UN law could have done with some of this wall paper. Though I don't know if even this stuff can stand up to the bulldozers [theregister.co.uk] Israel use against civilians.
Someone has to ask ... (Score:2)
So why don't we just build the walls out of the same material ?
What I want to know is... (Score:2)
What I want to know is, if I install this wallpaper in my Windows workstation, would it prevent it from crashing?
-dZ.
Demonstration very misleading... (Score:4, Insightful)
Observe that the material is not actually fastened to the wall, rather is is anchored to the top of the wall and the bottom of the wall (look at the piece of angle iron in the demo)
This angle iron also distributes the force across the material, without it, it would just rip out where it was anchored, such as if just screws were used to attach it. I would bet that that piece of angle iron is pretty well tightened...
If it were truly fastened as wallpaper, then it may prevent the wall from shattering, however the wall would still collapse where the material stopped unless anchored (as in the demo). Hence, instead of pieces of a wall falling on you, the entire wall would just fall on you, probably killing you...
And yes, the rest of the structure would still collapse on you as well.
This is probably an advance, however it probably would require new structural building techniques, as well as additional steel anchors/angle iron for it to be truly effective. Not something joe public could ever afford, but I am sure governments could "find" the money.....