Strange Building Damage Patterns on 9/11

I'm just going to say flat out that four buildings on 9/11 suffered strange, inexplicable damage: WTC1, WTC2, WTC7 and the Pentagon.

WTC7 of course was not hit by an airplane, but collapsed in an apparent incident of controlled demolition.

WTC1 and WTC2 were hit by airplanes of course, but their collapses were strange and not clearly explained by the airplane damage.

The Pentagon was apparently hit by an airplane of some sort, but the extent of damage to the Pentagon does not make any sense at all even if flight 77 was what hit. (Take a look here, here, here and here to see what I am talking about)

Two posts back I linked to this site, where the author has some amazing info and an incredibly interesting theory to explain the WTC1 and WTC2 collapses (and by extension the WTC7 collapse).

The theory here was that the central core of WTC1 and WTC2 was pre-loaded with C-4 plastic explosives during the buildings' construction. As strange as this might seem, the theory has very strong explanatory powers for why the towers collapsed as they did. The idea, I think, was that there was some desire to have a pre-packed way to demolish the buildings if there was need to do so. The key evidence for this theory is a documentary on the construction of the core of the WTC towers:

The actual slowdown in construction was when it was revealed by the government agency constructing, and the videographers had to pry for this information, that there was a special anti corrosion, anti vibration resistant coating on the rebar of the concrete core structure. The coating was flammable and special precautions were to be taken, meaning the government would handle the butt welding of the 3 inch vertical bar prior to regular crews running the horizontal minor steel that is tied with wire.

A special crew with armed escorts outside visual screens removed the coating from the bars, beveled the bar ends, welded the bars (welders working on the main steel couldn't be used because they didn't have security clearances) and x-rayed them. After each tier of concrete was poured the welding had to be completed before the concrete forms could be built again. (snip)
the thick coatings of the rebar of the cast concrete support core columns and foundation were actually made of plastic explosive C4. This would put enough explosive force in direct contact with the most concrete at high enough pressures and enable the instantaneous structural collapse of each floor consecutively to the ground that we saw, as well as the resulting particulate. Attempting to apply explosives to the exterior of the concrete would have created too much external explosion and made the demo obvious...

Okay, got that? This makes sense to me, at least.

Now, we know the Pentagon was recently renovated where it was hit by "flight 77".

What IF the contractors did some sort of special rebar on the Pentagon also using this C-4 explosive in the walls?

I have to think this theory could explain the damage pattern of the Pentagon better than simply a Boeing crashing into the outside wall, exploding and disintegrating outside, but still managing incredible damage through several rings of the building, including the 10 foot "exit hole" and blown out doors on the A-E drive.

Was having "flight 77" hit the Pentagon a test of this explosive system?

What I can say for absolutely sure is the damage pattern of the Pentagon does not make sense unless additional explosives are invoked.

At least one Pentagon worker said he smelled explosives, there was a shock wave similar to what would be produced by explosives, and there is the damage that only makes sense by explosives-- particularly the "exit hole".

But one couldn't have high explosives just laying around in the Pentagon offices could you? Same for the WTC towers, in fact.

Thus, it seems highly likely explosives were BUILT INTO these structures.

Why were explosives built into the Pentagon?

1) part of a self-destruct mode in case of some unusual emergency at the Pentagon?
2) part of a planned terror drill that was co-opted by the 9/11 planners?

But the important point is that this theory fits the evidence better.