Some confusing points about Bell's spaceship paradox from a video I was looking this video about Bell's Spaceship Paradox on Youtube titled This Paradox Took 17 Years To Solve. It's Still Debated. Please note that the video starts at the segment I have a question about.
The capture below from the video shows the setup.

Introduction from the video's transcript: Consider the following scenario: Two spaceships connected by a taut string are accelerating in exactly the same fashion. What happens to the string? Does it snap? If the acceleration is the same, then the distance between them should also remain the same. So the string should not snap, right? But if they accelerate anywhere near the speed of light, length contraction happens. So snap? But the spaceships don't observe the length contraction and neither does the string. So which is it? Does it snap or not? We can solve this, but it's going to test the limits of special relativity.
Personal opinion: I'm only interested how Charles interprets the situation because I personally find it more understandable and 'real'. If Arthur and Bernard are so advanced to have developed such spaceships then they should also know that what's really going on rather than thinking if one is lagging behind or other is going too fast!
Please try to avoid concepts such as worldlines etc. and try to keep it as simple and as intuitive as possible. I'm trying to look at it in terms of dynamic interpretation of special relativity and not kinematic.
Why string breaks for Charles from the video's transcript:
At the beginning, everyone is stationary relative to each other, so they're all in the same frame of reference. Having the rockets start at the same moment isn't the problem. It's the acceleration rate that's the problem. There's only one observer that measures those rates to be the same: Charles.
... Since they accelerate at the same rate... The rockets maintain a steady distance from each other while contracting in length. But the string is attached to both ships, so it can't contract even though it's trying to. The extra tension makes it snap.
Question 1:
Around 3:21 into the video the length contraction for rockets is shown as if the rockets are contracting toward their center point from both forward and backward directions as shown below in the picture. The string is also shown to snap from the middle. I agree that it's just an animation to convey a general idea and doesn't need to be accurate. I understand that length contraction is independent of the material an object is made up of. In dynamic interpretation of special relativity, how does the length contraction really happen? Does it happen toward the center point as shown in the picture below, or toward backward point?

Question 2:
Around 8:57 into the video, the following is said. "Yet another assumption we've made here is that the string is incredibly weak. It has no effect on how the rockets move. Technically, this string breaks immediately. You could easily choose something stronger, like a thick metal rod or something. But the stronger it is, the more it will affect how the rockets move. If it's strong enough, the rockets won't even be independent anymore. Arthur will just be towing Bernard. They'll act as one object". Will Charles also see Arthur towing Bernard when a thick metal rod is used instead of an incredibly weak string? How would Charles interpret the situation if he, in fact, sees Arthur towing Bernard?
 A: Question 1: There is no contraction in the rest frame of A & B, so nothing happens. From C's point of view: It doesn't matter. Charlie needs to define a reference point, and if he chooses the front of the rocket or the back: it doesn't matter. If he picks the tip of the nose, then the tail "catches up" as it contracts. If he picks the middle then the nose and tail crunch in. And so on.  Note that it is not like a spring, as no stresses are accumulated during contraction.
Question 2: If the string is super strong, then it can be compensated by thrust so that A & B remain on their trajectory. It will break, though, eventually.  If the rocket thrust can't do that, then A & B fail to follow the proper trajectory proscribed in the problem. Whether A tows B forward or B pulls A back doesn't really matter. They're pulling each other and no longer accelerate uniformly in C's frame.
A: The apparent paradox- as with the twin paradox and the pole-in-the-barn paradox- is the result of the relativity of simultaneity, and arises from the ambiguity of the phrase 'accelerating in exactly the same fashion'. What you have to remember is that the spaceships can only accelerate 'in exactly the same fashion' in one reference frame, because in any other frame their instantaneous changes in velocity won't be simultaneous. So if they start accelerating simultaneously in a ground frame, then as they speed up their accelerations will get more and more out of synch, the distance between them will increase and the string will break.
