Was there a reason September 11th was chosen as the date of the attacks?

A Dutch drug smuggler's flight school is more important to understand why the 9/11 hijackers chose it. Daniel learned through sourcing and investigation that Rudi had investors, including Willy Hillard (a known CIA asset) and Rock Boehlke, a guy who is accused of stealing 340 million dollars from union pension funds. Apparently, there is also some link to Prince Turki's (the Saudi intelligence chief and head of this flight school) smuggling operation to bring in large amounts of heroin. 

The mainstream media are useless, it took a real journalist to investigate the inner workings of this flight school

This company was basically a place where drugs were smuggled into America from foreign countries. It was run by a group of covert operatives who had gone private.  

There is no mystery here. The Boston bombers were spotted on camera at the site with backpacks and left without them. There is no evidence of a larger conspiracy.

Putting the two events side by side is a simplistic approach.

In my opinion, the evidence presented by AE911 truth is strong. Even Mick West admitted on video that this group discovered information in NIST reports that are untrue. Mick wasn't honest about the implications of that.

After finally admitting that shear studs, stiffeners, plates, and seat measurements provided by NIST are removed and are incorrect, he finally admitted that NIST trigger events aren't accurate. This incident occurred in the area of column 79 (A2001 girder), as NIST claims here. Because the construction was removed, none of what NIST claims is true whatsoever, and Mick admission confirms the caliber of AE911 truth put into this case.

Is it possible for the girder to expand off its seat if the shear studs, plates, and seat size are all correct? The fact that NIST removed them without a clear explanation indicates that computer animation was struggling to get the building to collapse as they intended.

Some other energy is used to remove steel instead we enter the world of controlled demolition, but NIST wants to avoid this at all costs.

The fact that you still claim fire shows that you do not understand the false nature of these studies.

NIST now agrees that the building collapsed eight stories during freefall, which has startling implications. As to how eight stories of structure suddenly removed themselves to let the rest of the building fall down, NIST has no valid explanation. In the absence of equal amounts of damage occurring simultaneously, it is impossible to conduct any natural procedure from the bottom across the building. Only known method to remove 8 stories of structure in one go is by controlled demolition. Freefall in a building collapsing naturally is impossible, all failures are uneven and out of sync. As shown by the NIST models, the building would be crushed during a natural collapse, but none of this happened during the actual collapse. It is only necessary to look at the west wall to see that the steel frame was not decoupled from the wall. 

You going to claim that freefall natural collapsed 8 stories vertically and caused the same level of damage as controlled demolition, then you need to show it. It's a red flag that they haven't.

Anyhow, the NIST collapse doesn't make sense, since if one half of the building collapsed first (tilting over to one side as the Hulsey report shows) then the collapse moved horizontally across from top and progressed to the bottom, how would you get freefall at the bottom?

NIST has all these weird collapse stages broken up. The load up top had to come through its own structure.

Steel supports over eight stories can't block the load. Fact NIST has one side blocked, is further evidence that freefall was caused by controlled demolition.

Do not take my word for it. Their own model shows the impossibility of freefall occurring across eight levels of floors. Debris up top bypasses the steel in the black box, but how? Debunkers will never answer, but they claim to understand science. 

There was a lot of talk on 9/11 about controlled demolition bringing down the building. It was almost like deploying a cover story that if the demolition was delayed could still claim the explosives were placed in there later. There was more evidence that time was running out to bring down the building by announcing its collapse before it actually fell. Predicting the sequence of events that NIST outlined here is remarkable considering the deception of their work. As all of this is going on, it looks like the media networks are preparing for collapse

In his confession, John Kerry admitted that they brought down the building in a controlled manner because of the danger of structural problems. In the midst of 9/11, it's interesting how they do that? Who told him brought down in controlled manner?

A number of network anchors said it looked like a controlled demolition. All the media channels just watched as the building fell down. The building was cleared and people were told to move back. Due to NIST deception, it was not remotely possible that this would happen naturally. The media was used to influence people's opinion in a clear false flag. It was huge in scope and influenced people's opinions what came next war on terror. 

It is undisputed that a building of this design has never collapsed fully due to fire. If buildings like this had collapsed in similar ways in the past, it would not have been so difficult.

NIST lied about how the building collapsed for the first time in history, revealing the conspiracy. There is evidence that a large conspiracy exists to remove all evidence from this site as quickly as possible, as evidenced by the fact that the WTC7 steel was removed in large dump trunks with GPS devices and antennas. From a building 47 high, NIST couldn't find a single piece of confirmed WTC7 steel anywhere, which is startling. The evidence would be destroyed if another easily detectable method was used to bring down seven rather than the towers.

 I remember, was in danger, and I think that they made a decision based on the danger, that it had of destroying other things that they did it in a controlled fashion.

In your neck of the woods, what does controlled fashion mean?

As we know, the United States renditioned alleged subjects and tortured them in prisons for a decade. That's not how it works. These confessions and statements released by the US government from interrogations are the foundation of the whole narrative around Al Qaeda. Media people were told they were unable to visit the alleged ringleaders, and then another scandal broke that the CIA destroyed all tapes of these confessions. Al Qaeda's world narrative is entirely based on what the US government claims happened. Since the late 1990s, Al Qaeda has been controlled from the get-go.

The facts are that most of these so-called 9/11 terrorists had to bypass CIA visa controls in Saudi Arabia. As a result of a meeting between 9/11 ringleaders in Malaysia in 1999, the CIA was aware of 9/11 plot since 1999. Media narratives and 9/11 commission reports are lies. I would never have imagined such an attack.

As a matter of fact, the CIA was fully aware of this group's intentions since they tracked them from early 2000 until August 2001 where they came out with false statements after the attacks, after losing them somehow in their own backyard.

The media has never asked what did you learn and see between the two years leading up to the terrorist attacks. Did the CIA see them taking flying lessons?

These flight schools are not what the media reported. The 9/11 terrorists ended up attending flight schools that had connections to international intelligence criminal rings because there were actually CIA drug smuggling airports. When it was already known Epstein had intelligence links and was dealing with trafficking underage girls to rich clients, the media didn't perform this due diligence either here.

It is troubling that drills were conducted on the day of 9/11 that mimicked the 9/11 terrorist attacks. A claim that the US couldn't imagine a hijacking of planes is false. They inserted false blips into Norad computers to mimic hijackings of planes. If you listen to the NORAD tapes, you'll hear the staff wonder if it was real world or drills. Higher-ups didn't shut down the drills until 11 o'clock.; Someone in the higher echelons wanted the switchboards to be confusing until everything was over.

In the final stages of planning to hijack Mohammed Atta's plane on 9/11, General Mahmoud Ahmed wired him 100,000 Dollars. PNAC members met with him a week before 9/11 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century), but the media did not question this meeting. Ahmed is shown to be a large contributor to the 9/11 attacks. This shows how little we really know about what happened. The meetings of factions with clear goals for changing the Middle East are somehow ignored.

Despite the fact that buildings of this type do not collapse simply because of localised fires, you may get a partial collapse in one area that causes a building section to collapse. What is suspicious and still ignored is that the government investigation of the collapse ignored all statements and evidence that the collapse was not caused by fire. While there is no documented history of fires melting steel in office buildings, we have examples and witnesses that all of this happened on 9/11. In the context of fire causing all the damage, how does one explain the steel missing hardened alloy grains? Fires only reach a certain temperature due to burning materials, so the fact that engineers found chunks of alloy missing from large pieces of steel makes no sense.

The fact you ignore is that Mick West conceded that NIST left out many of the constructions that would fundamentally change what occurred inside building seven.. When it comes to 9/11, it is obvious that they have no problem lying here about what is on the girder. They have no problem lying elsewhere. ( did happen)

In spite of the fact that column 79 was not destroyed by fire, what energy use to remove the girder and column?

As Mick West finally admitted the truther community's work on this topic is solid, he sparked a debate regarding how the column collapsed if NIST is incorrect? It is evident that NIST studied poorly and did not realize the building collapsed at free fall until truthers pressed them on the issue. Shows a disrespectful attitude from debunkers when NIST missed one of the most important parts of the collapse and then covered it up in the final report. 

What the evidence you mean?

The column 79 failed because a girder on the seat fell off, resulting in multiple failures.

There are fundamental flaws in the premise, as demonstrated by real work.

The first failure inside the building actually occurred here, as NIST claims, and Mick West has now admitted that truthers are right and NIST even left off stiffener plates, bolts and connections that helped the collapse to begin.

How does the building collapse in that area? You don't care about this because you believe in fairy tales that buildings of this type just magically fall when one girder comes off its seat.

Freefall signifies the removal of a column in its entirety, allowing the upper portion to pass through that gap underneath at free acceleration. Since the building is designed in such a way that there will always be resistance underneath to slow the fall, this has never happened naturally before. In a conference on the draft, NIST acknowledged that freefall doesn't make any physical sense unless it is instantaneous. Even NIST acknowledged resistance in its final report, but that is nonsense since there is no resistance in a building collapsing at freefall.

In the rubble piles, witnesses discovered melted steel. There was a noise explosion at WTC7 as well. Evidence has been provided by credible sources. There are millions of iron microspheres in the dust that R Lee admits most came from an event that took place inside the building. It is the clearest sign of a chemical attack that there is free iron in dust. Dont get free Iron from alloy ( steel) How would free Iron form in collapse of building due to fire? Even the study admits that buildings developed free iron microspheres as a result of high temperatures. In a building where Free Iron can only be produced at temperatures well over 1500 degrees Celsius, how did this happen? It's a smoking gun of 9/11 that conspirators destroyed the towers with some chemical composite. 

Watching what happened on television as the building collapsed shows the truther community is right. Just by watching what happened, the NIST theory crumbles. Describe why the Penthouse collapse broke the left side windows, but the collapse NIST claims occurred across did not break any window? There is another smoking gun that indicates the collapse began at the bottom instead of crossways as NIST claims.

There is no question in the minds of those who know anything about this subject that window breakage only occurred after columns were removed, not before. NIST and the mainstream thought that a floors could start crashing down from top to bottom and the building would look the same. In order for the windows at WTC7 to survive an internal collapse before the frame collapsed, they must be the strongest windows ever created.