That site was chosen because it was determined to have been geologically stable for the last 12 million years.
There's lots of places that are "out of view". Many of them are on geological fault lines or show evidence of having been volcanically active in that last few thousand years. Given that the recorded history of geological events on this contintinent only goes back a few hundred years, all we have is physical evidence - nobody actually saw it happen and wrote about it.
If the physical evidence is not admissible, then there's no reason not to build it on one of those sites.
Stable is stable. It is a mountian. If age is as important to you as you say, it must have been raised up (due to instability) at some point.
12 million? Just using the same ‘dating methods’ used for all other ages guessed at.
The presence of faults is easy to determine. It is also easy to see that such a site would be preferable to located in a fault-less location.
Nice try at an ambush. You may try again.