Total Destruction Redux: F4 Phantom vs. Concrete Wall - Additional Camera Angles

They were designed with that in mind though. They were built to withstand an plane crash or attack. You may have seen the famous test of ramming a F4 Phantom into a reinforced concrete walls without much effect: ▶ this video It's certainly possible to blow them up, but they very unlikely to melt down like Chernobyl did anymore due to all the effort put into preventing that. Easier to just launch radioactive materials at your enemy if that's the result you want.

To your fifth point, nuclear reactor containment vessels can easily withstand a plane crashing into them [1]. [1]: ▶ this video

I don't think anything manmade and space-borne is going to have enough structural integrity to perform any kind of summersault upon impact at that velocity. See the fighter jet vs concrete wall video [1]. That was going at 500mph, and notice how the tail of the craft doesn't even perceptibly slow down. And a change in velocity would be required for the tail to rotate around (whether the impact is on an angle or head on) This space object was travelling at 5800mph, 11+ times the speed. Sure a meter or so of moon dust may be a bit softer, but its solid rock underneath right? I'd guess the equivalent would be putting a kitchen sponge between that fighter jet & concrete wall. [1] ▶ this video

Regulations require all nuclear reactor containment domes to be able to withstand the impact of a fully loaded passenger jet. It is literally a requirement - see link . You can also check out this video of experiments investigating the strength of containment-dome-like reinforced concrete: ▶ this video