He says it plainly in the polemic and he recognizes he has a problem and blames it on Daniel.
"Therefore, all the facts and reasons we have given in proof that verse 27 speaks of Christ, and all the facts and reasons given to show that the prince that is to come of verse 26 was Titus, avail equally to prove that the 70th week joined directly to the 69th. And conversely, all the facts and reasons we are now about to set forth in proof that the 70th week was indeed one of the "seventy," and not a detached and remote period, avail equally to prove that verse 27 refers to Christ."
"We would point out to begin with that the words "Seventy weeks are determined," etc., are words of clear and certain meaning. They are just the words which would be used by one who wished to be understood as saying that, within the measure of 70 weeks, the six things specified in Daniel 9:24 would happen."
"On the other hand, the Word of God makes it quite plain, as we hope to show later on, that the "abomination, which was to make the city and sanctuary a "desolation, was the army of Titus, "the people of the prince that shall come."
"And we do know, both by the words of the prophecy, and also by the information given in the Gospel according to John, that Christ was crucified within the "week" (seven years) following His anointing and manifestation to Israel. We know, in other words, that he was "cut off" in the seventieth week counting in the ordinary way from the given starting point. And this would be true regardless of what decree be taken as that starting point. This double witness, that of the prophecy itself and that of the Gospel-records, puts the matter beyond all doubt. By means thereof we know to a certainty that none of the six great things foretold in verse 24 happened within the sixty- nine weeks, but that each and all of them came to pass within the week which came next thereafter, that is to say in the seventieth consecutive week from the starting point. Nothing could be better established upon clear scriptural evidence than this."
"The words "for the overspreading of abominations" are very obscure, and many suggestions as to their meaning have been offered. We shall not discuss these, for the reason that the Septuagint translation gives a clear rendering, and our Lord's adoption of it puts the authoritative stamp of His approval upon it. According to that version "the abomination of desolation" was to be upon (or to come against) the temple, that is, for its destruction. In other words there was to come an agency or force (which God terms an "abomination", which was to make the place a "desolation."
"The Lord Jesus Christ used the same expression when, in warning His disciples of the approaching destruction of Jerusalem by the armies of Titus, He said: "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoso readeth, let him understand), then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountain ," etc,
"But if, on the other hand, we take the. prophecy as it is given, that is to say, in heptads, not years, then it will be clearly seen that all the seventy heptads are accounted for. For our exposition simply follows the terms of the prophecy, which are quite plain, and which locate certain events "in the midst of" the last heptad, but do not locate any events at the end thereof. If, therefore, any part of the determined period is unaccounted for, it is the prophecy itself, and not this writer's exposition thereof, that is chargeable."
From the above, "Let’s see now, if Messiah is cut off in the middle of the 70th “heptad” (30 A.D.) and Jerusalem is destroyed sometime during the 70th “heptad” (70 A.D.) that would mean that this writer’s “heptad” has an unaccounted for gap or it means anything he wants it to mean or its Daniel’s fault."
This polemic is kind of like a variation on the old joke about the man who asks a woman if she would have sex with him for a million dollars?
Here it is would Philip Mauro accept a parenthesis of 40 years to which he answers yes in his polemic.
So then would he accept a parenthesis of 2,000 years to which he indignantly replies, "what kind of a bible teacher do you think I am?"
To which the reply “We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling about the size of the parenthesis.”
"But the fact is that the prophecy accounts first for sixty-nine heptads (which reached "unto the Messiah") and then it accounts specifically for the one remaining heptad, and for the whole of it, by telling what was to happen in the midst thereof. Thus the prophecy (and the exposition which simply follows it) leaves no part of [the] prophetic period unaccounted for."
The author does not claim anything is wrong with the prophecy itself, but all was fulfilled. Your analysis is that which is in error.
Selective reading is futurism's trouble in the first place.