Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: Yes, because...

Starting with a complete denial that the plane impacts and fires had anything to do with the WTC tower collapses !?! You appear to be confusing where the burden of proof lies in order to load your language with more deliberately false rhetoric. Nobody has proven that the plane impacts or the fires caused the collapse of the WTC buildings. You are simply hoping people assume this must have been the case. Indeed, WTC 7 was not even struck by a plane yet collapsed at free fall speed just like the other two towers. Hence, Harrit hasn't "denied" anything. He's simply proven that your theory about how the towers collapsed is wrong.he behaved like a person untouched by reality.Absolutely epic Freudian projection. You insist the plane impacts and office fires caused the 415 metre tall, 500,000 kg WTC buildings to collapse symmetrically into their own footprints at free fall speed, but you have absolutely no evidence of this, and yet you are using distortion and abuse of language to attack a professional scientist who has written a peer-reviewed paper which proves that you are wrong. The evidence proves that neither fires nor plane impacts caused the collapse of the WTC buildings. It's as simple as that. Instead of producing a qualified refutation of Harrit's work as you were asked to do three days ago, you have instead simply repeatedly attacked the man with transparent appeals to emotion and fallacy. 'There has never been a forensic investigation of this event. (9/11)This is absolutely true. Ruling out the use of explosives should have been standard protocol for a suspected terrorist attack, but no forensic tests for explosives residue were conducted on the WTC buildings. It actually gets even worse than that, because there were no physical tests of any kind. For every single person in the world with credibility and intellect, this is a spectacular red flag.Draft admits that NIST did no physical testinghttp://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosivesevidencetimeline.html#draftcontentsNo evidence has been put forward. No one has been formally charged.Also a (half) true statement. Nobody has ever put forward any evidence that either bin Laden or al Qaeda were in any way involved with the 9/11 attacks. In fact, after the FBI had finished investigating the matter, the director went on the record to say:-In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot.http://911review.com/myth/hijackers.html It is not true that no one has been formally charged, but since the only person to be formally charged was charged in complete secrecy in 2008, and Harrit was speaking in 2009, it is very likely that Harrit was unaware of this.The police and FBI have not charged anyone, and no-one is 'wanted'.This is true. Neither the police nor the FBI charged anyone, and bin Laden, the head of the organisation the US government claimed was responsible, never appeared on the FBI wanted list for connection with that particular attack. So who is crazy here?'You are crazy, because you are attacking a professional scientist's use of language during a TV interview instead of refuting his peer-reviewed proof that there were explosives in the WTC buildings. You are using transparent political smear attacks in precisely the same way the representatives of the fossil fuel industry do when they are confronted with inconvenient climate science.He seems unaware of Khalid Shiek MohammedKhalid Sheikh Mohammed is dead. He died in a police raid in Karachi in 2002. The man in US custody, whoever he might be, is not Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.As reported by the Asia Times, 30 October, 2002:-The FBI, still keen to take Shaikh Mohammed alive, teargassed the area, and a number of people were captured. However, despite instructions to the contrary, a few Pakistan Rangers entered the flat, where they found Shaikh Mohammed and another man, allegedly with their hands up. The Rangers nevertheless opened fire on the pair.Later, the Pakistani press carried pictures of a message scrawled in blood on the wall of the flat, proclaiming the Muslim refrain of Kalma, in Arabic: There is no God except Allah, Mohammed is his messenger). An official who was present in the flat at the time of the shooting has told Asia Times Online that the message was written by Shaikh Mohammed with his own blood as his life drained from him.Subsequently, to their surprise, the raiders learned that Ramzi Binalshibh had been netted in the swoop. And nothing further was said of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.But now it emerges that an Arab woman and a child were taken to an ISI safe house, where they identified the Shaikh Mohammed's body as their husband and father. The body was kept in a private NGO mortuary for 20 days before being buried, under the surveillance of the FBI, in a graveyard in the central district of Karachi.http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27d/026.html Furthermore, and again evidencing how corrupt your country is:-Judge 'manipulated' 9/11 attacks case, court document allegeshttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/31/9-11-attacks-destroyed-evidence-khalid-sheikh-mohammed And oblivious to the trial of Zacharias Mousawi, the '20th hijacker'.As pointed out by political scientist and Guardian columnist Nafeez Ahmed:-"Curiously, according to motions from (Zacarias) Moussaoui unsealed in Federal court, he wished to testify before both a grand jury and the US Congress about the 9/11 attacks, claiming to possess information that the US government permitted the attacks to happen. That request has so far been refused." (Ahmed 2005, p204)AHMED, NAFEEZ MOSADDEQ, 2005, P204, The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation And The Anatomy Of Terrorism. Moreton-In-Marsh, Gloucestershire, England: Arris Publishing Ltd."New Pearl Harbor"You have now progressed from distortion into outright lying. "New Pearl Harbor" is a reference to a 2001 white paper released by far right wing think tank Project For A New American Century, in which they recommended an aggressive American foreign policy in the Middle East, including the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and concluded by saying the American public will never support it unless there is an event amounting to a "new Pearl Harbor". This phrase has quite literally nothing to do with Niels Harrit, so you are exposing yourself as a complete and total liar.John Pilger reveals the American plan: a new Pearl HarbourTwo years ago a project set up by the men who now surround George W Bush said what America needed was a "catastrophic and catalysing event".http://www.newstatesman.com/node/192545The editor of the journal, Professor Marie-Paule Pileni, an expert in explosives and nano-technology,resigned.You are repeating the same information over and over again and completely ignoring my refutation of it. I am using reason and you are using persuasion.If Professor Marie-Paule Pileni (who works for the French military-industrial complex) is "an expert in explosives and nano-technology" then why did she claim Harrit's paper was "outside her field of expertise"? As I posted for you earlier:-The editor in chief of the journal where recently the paper: "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" was published, resigned, claiming she wasn't informed of the publication. She proceeds to provide not a single solid scientific rebuttal, only administrative bickering and personal political bias against, well.. inconvenient science. One particularly notable comment attributed to Ms. Pileni is this one: "Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad.".http://911blogger.com/node/19963So this is the second time you have been given the same proof that Professor Marie-Paule Pilen did not resign because of the article's content (i.e. "I cannot judge whether it is good or bad"), but rather for political reasons. And yet you keep repeating the same debunked smear attack.You cannot win this debate for the simple reason that you are absolutely, exhaustively, and unequivocally wrong. I believe that you are fully aware that you are wrong, because you are not even attempting to debate the facts. Instead you are making appeals to emotion, abusing language, launching smear attacks and repeating the same debunked talking points over and over and over again. Your goal here appears to be persuasion instead of truth.