The easiest way to get a prediction to be accurate, is to make the prediction after the event, but predate your prediction.
That is what happened to the prediction in Daniel. The one about Tyre being picked up and thrown into the sea.
The prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem, to my mind, conclusively dates Matthew after AD 70.
That is simply because you approach the text with an anti-supernatural presupposition, which is neither historically justified, nor demanded by "science" but is pure prejudice. Your comments on Daniel are similiar There is no "reason" to approach a book that openly presents a supernatural view of the universe with anti-supernatural rubrics already in place. That is, unless your object is to avoid at all costs any compelling universal truths which may have a claim on your commitment to your own cosmic independence.