So it's an article from the much less authoritative Washington Post, and infact about an academic exercise? Interesting.
This really needs to be emphasized for people not clicking through the link. No, not the mistake Uzzy makes between the Post and the Times
, but rather the fact that the quote is from a position paper. It's not talking about 9/11 whatsoever, or anything else in the real world. Rather, it's a hypothetical paper thinking through how the US military would handle things should they be called upon to enforce a peace agreement between Israel and a hypothetical Palestinian state. In other words, the article is nothing more than a
mental exercise.
I'm saying this to the point of being a broken record, but: That quote demonstrates a standard conspiracy peddling technique - context subtraction. In order to deliver a different sense of a statement than was originally intended, a truther will willingly and deliberately subtract anything and everything necessary for full and complete understanding of that statement. That way, they can project their own sense onto it; Quintiere's statements are one shining example of this; any statement about "explosions" are others. It's not merely sheer dishonesty, but blatant and deliberate because work must be done in order to subtract all context informing the casual reader what a given statement truly refers to. In the quote in question, it's obvious that the paper was written with complete obliviousness to what would eventually happen on September 11th, yet merely on the strength of the word "Mossad", antisemitic truthers link it to the event. But they have to subtract everything else in the piece and only present that one, single sentence cast with their own well-poisoning lead-in in order to disguise the fact that no sane individual reading the piece could fail to understand its utter and complete lack of connection to anything to do with 9/11.
The dishonesty is stunning.
This, lurkers and new readers, is why truthers are so untrustworthy. Even when they take a truth, they find a way to somehow wrap it in a lie in order to move people in their direction. But it also reveals a time-proven method of refuting a truther's reference: Look up the original information. Time and time again, you'll discover that it means anything other than what the conspiracy peddler says it means. In nearly every case, you'll find the refutation to a truther's statement merely by explaining what the statement actually is saying. And you'll illuminate the truther's dishonesty while doing so.
