Nah, that's what the steel rebar is for. Plus, rebar is easier to work around. Externally bonded FRP stuff is good if you want to further beef up your wall. There's a building code under development (ACI 440) for such applications.

This is true. Flexibility gives you better energy dissipation. Rigidity gives much higher forces. Tall buildings >60ft are usually built to be surprisingly flexible so that the lateral forces at the foundation level aren't as bad.

Actually, there's a lot of testing for this kind of stuff going on in Civil/Structural Engineering right now. It's true that sometimes the bond between materials is the deciding factor for failure. With some of the newest epoxy and proper treatment of the wall beforehand you can avoid those issues, though. I do note that it says "Kevlar-like" material. I find it odd that that'd use Aramid fibers (what kevlar's made of) in such an application, since they have a moisture absorption problem. Glass Fibers are cheaper, but not as strong. Carbon Fibers would probably be more typical (despite their relatively high cost). The anchors at the top of the wall simulate a roof tie system. In an actual building, there's a lot that's helping hold it together. A live test of a carbon system (with actual explosion!) is here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oYm_bNgBLY . No angle iron needed, just proper treatment of the wall and application of the materials. now some of the bond may not be alright after this . . . It may not hold up to multiple blasts. The idea is you take a hit and you get someone out to repair the structure as necessary. The point is this isn't just a gimmick or misleading. There is actual hard core R&D going on in the development of FRP (Fiber-reinforced polymer) materials as a retrofit or new construction material for exactly this purpose, to increase strength in otherwise weak and/or broken structures. (UCSD used to be pretty big in this arena, they have some crazy testing equipment including a blast test simulator).