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

You seem to keep adding people to your conspiracy. Last check it was everyone from Nazi's to Mossad to Saudi to Bush to Biden to the FBI and CIA.

Maybe a more pertinent question is - who wasn't involved?

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

I watched it live and pretty much didn't turn off the 24/7 news for weeks afterwards (like many people), I don't recall much, if any, talk of "controlled demolition".

You change your conspiracies often, you "see" things in photos that aren't there, you engage in lots of shenanigans to support your belief - that's all deceptive behavior. Note how you gaslight and project that behavior onto proper investigations.

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?

It's a politician talking about a building he doesn't know much about. A bit like when I've asked 9/11 truthers about WTC 6 and I know they have to go look it up.