Okay, I knew this was going to happen.
Firstly, when writting a quote it is good manners to write the complete quote which reads "The Data Vault is the optimal choice for modeling the EDW in the DW 2.0 framework.”
Secondly, "DW 2.0 framework" is a book authored by three different people, including Inmon - nobody by them can tell who actually come out with such statement.
Last but not least, it means exactly what it means... one of the authors of DW 2.0 framework thinks that Data Vault is the optimal choice for their particular vision of EDW.
Out of topic. Is it a fair statement to say that most Data Vault EDW's end up with a dimensional modeled set of datamarts on top of it? Yes, innit?
The only thing that "happened" is I disagreed with your characterization of Data Vault as something less than Kimball's approach. There are well known problems with Ralph's methods (as well as Bill's). The Data Vault was designed specifically as a methodology for data warehouses and has a sound theoretical foundation as well as practical application. Clearly you are not well versed in the methodology so I provided a good reference.
Had I meant to quote someone I would have. I was summarizing what I know to be Bill's position based on not only that one book but his multiple other writings and conversations on the topic.
Your final point is actually not relevant. Data marts based on dimensional modeling are certainly a good reporting choice for performance reasons, though certainly not the only choice. However, data marts do not a data warehouse make, regardless of religious fervor.
My only point to the original poster was that there are more options out there than slavish devotion to one style of modeling. It is certainly possible to pound in a screw with a wrench, but that doesn't make it good engineering.