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

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.