Misplaced Pages

Jim Hoffman: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:05, 14 October 2006 editTom harrison (talk | contribs)Administrators47,534 edits some of each← Previous edit Revision as of 12:17, 14 October 2006 edit undoRenamed user Sloane (talk | contribs)7,015 edits revert to aude's best/neutral versionNext edit →
Line 14: Line 14:
In June, 2006, at the ], Dr. ], a ] from ], credited Hoffman's WTC7.net website, as an inspiration for conducting his own analysis of the WTC building collapses. Hoffman's book and websites are cited in Jones' essay "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?".<ref> </ref> Hoffman has also been cited by author ],<ref> {{cite book| last = Ray Griffin| first = David | year = 2004| title = The New Pearl Harbor| publisher = Interlink | id = ISBN 1-56656-552-9}}</ref>. In June, 2006, at the ], Dr. ], a ] from ], credited Hoffman's WTC7.net website, as an inspiration for conducting his own analysis of the WTC building collapses. Hoffman's book and websites are cited in Jones' essay "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?".<ref> </ref> Hoffman has also been cited by author ],<ref> {{cite book| last = Ray Griffin| first = David | year = 2004| title = The New Pearl Harbor| publisher = Interlink | id = ISBN 1-56656-552-9}}</ref>.


Hoffman has been critical of the more extreme 9/11 theories, in particular he does not endorse the theory that the ] was hit by something other than an airplane,<ref></ref> and his website has a detailed critique of the documentary '']''.<ref></ref> Hoffman believes that, in an attempt to discredit skeptics of the official versions of the attacks, some aspects of the attacks may have been "engineered" to encourage acceptance of "flimsy" 9/11 conspiracy theories - such as the idea that a missile, rather than Flight 77, hit the Pentagon - particularly when an evidence vacuum exists.<ref name="salon"/> Supporting this position, the website oilempire.us notes that ] was the first person to imply that a "missile" hit the Pentagon on 9/11/01, and that the statement was made during the same week that ] first published a webpage claiming that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. Oilempire.us states, "The most reasonable explanation is that this was a coordinated propaganda effort to create a false lead to distract the skeptics."<ref></ref> Similarly, Chris Farrell, the Director of Investigations & Research at ], which was given 2 Pentagon videos to release to the public, warned in an interview that his organization "could be the water carriers for a honey pot operation, in which the government attracts overwhelming attention to the Pentagon issue, making it the cornerstone of the 9/11 truth movement, and then blowing it out of the water by releasing clear footage of Flight 77."<ref></ref> He stated, "Let's just call it a baited trap, it draws somebody into a situation in which they're compromised." Currently, the Pentagon continues to hold over 70 videos of the Pentagon from the attack. Hoffman has been critical of the more extreme 9/11 conspiracy theories, in particular he does not endorse the theory that the ] was hit by something other than an airplane,<ref></ref> and his website has a detailed critique of the documentary '']''.<ref></ref> Hoffman believes that, in an attempt to discredit skeptics of the mainstream account of the attacks, "the 9/11 planners specifically engineered the attacks in a way that would lead some people to embrace flimsy 9/11 theories," Hoffman further claims: "the government wants people to say that an airplane didn't hit the Pentagon, because the claim makes 9/11 skeptics look silly."<ref name="salon"/>


==References== ==References==
Line 28: Line 28:
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ]


==External links== ==External links==
Line 51: Line 47:
===Conspiracy theory websites critical of Hoffman=== ===Conspiracy theory websites critical of Hoffman===
*, by Joe Quinn *, by Joe Quinn



<!-- Categories --> <!-- Categories -->

Revision as of 12:17, 14 October 2006

Jim Hoffman is a software engineer, based in Alameda, California, who has worked in mathematical visualization and produced the first visualization of Costa's minimal surface. Hoffman is well-known as the publisher of several websites advocating 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Mathematics

Jim Hoffman has worked in applying scientific visualization of mathematics, which was instrumental in the discovery of the first new examples of complete, embedded minimal surfaces in over one hundred years. As described by Stewart Dickson:

"By the 1890s the study of minimal surfaces was thought to be exhausted — no new surfaces could be described mathematically which were non-self-intersecting (embedded) in three-space and which had vanishing mean curvature. However, in 1983 a graduate student in Rio de Janeiro named Celsoe Costa wrote down an equation for what he thought might be a new minimal surface, but the equations were so complex that they obscured the underlying geometry. David Hoffman at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst enlisted James Hoffman to make computer-generated pictures of Costa's surface. The pictures they made suggested, first, that the surface was probably embedded— which gave them definite clues as to the approach they should take toward proving this assertion mathematically— and, second, that the surface contained straight lines, hence symmetry by reflection through the lines."

Hoffman's work has been featured in articles in Science News, Scientific American, and Nature, and he has co-authored papers in Science and Macromolecules. He is credited with involvement in the discovery of new, three-dimensional morphologies for modeling block co-polymers, such as the Split-P surface (a hybrid of the P and G triply periodic surfaces), and derived the first level set formulation for the Lidinoid surface.

He also is co-author of a patent for an internal combustion engine with increased thermal efficiency.

September 11, 2001 attacks

Since early 2003, Hoffman has been writing about the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) and other aspects of the September 11, 2001 attacks, which he believes involved insiders within the United States government. He is co-author, with Don Paul, of Waking up from our Nightmare: The 9/11 Crimes in New York City, and the video, released in February, 2006, 9/11 Guilt: The Proof is in Your Hands. He has also given talks and been interviewed on radio shows across the US and Canada. His work has been focused primarily on the collapse of the smaller 7 World Trade Center, and he is critical of the official explanation of that collapse. Hoffman has also written a critique of the official National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report on the building collapses, a critique of the 2006 NIST FAQ, and critiques of articles about 9/11 'conspiracy theories' by the popular-science magazines Scientific American and Popular Mechanics.

In June, 2006, at the 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium, Dr. Steven E. Jones, a physicist from Brigham Young University, credited Hoffman's WTC7.net website, as an inspiration for conducting his own analysis of the WTC building collapses. Hoffman's book and websites are cited in Jones' essay "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?". Hoffman has also been cited by author David Ray Griffin,.

Hoffman has been critical of the more extreme 9/11 conspiracy theories, in particular he does not endorse the theory that the Pentagon was hit by something other than an airplane, and his website has a detailed critique of the documentary Loose Change. Hoffman believes that, in an attempt to discredit skeptics of the mainstream account of the attacks, "the 9/11 planners specifically engineered the attacks in a way that would lead some people to embrace flimsy 9/11 theories," Hoffman further claims: "the government wants people to say that an airplane didn't hit the Pentagon, because the claim makes 9/11 skeptics look silly."

References

  1. ^ Manjoo, Farhad (2006-06-27). "The 9/11 deniers". Feature. Salon.com, Inc. Retrieved 2006-08-21.
  2. Mark, Jacobson (2006-03-27). "The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll". Feature. New York Magazine, Inc. Retrieved 2006-08-25.
  3. Article on scientific visualization
  4. 9-11 Research - About 9-11 Research
  5. Computer graphics tools for the study of minimal surfaces
  6. The Split P Surface
  7. The Lidinoid Surface
  8. US Patent & Trademark Office, Patent Full Text and Image Database - patent 4,584,972
  9. 9-11 Research - About Jim Hoffman
  10. 9-11 Research - The 9/11/01 Attack: Means, Motive, and Precedent
  11. 9-11 Research - Talks and Radio Interviews
  12. 9-11 Research - Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century
  13. A Reply to the National Institute for Standards and Technology's 'Answers to Frequently Asked Questions'
  14. 9-11 Research - Scientific American's Dishonest Attack On 911Research
  15. 9-11 Research - Popular Mechanics Attacks Its "9/11 LIES" Straw Man
  16. "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" by Steven E. Jones
  17. Ray Griffin, David (2004). The New Pearl Harbor. Interlink. ISBN 1-56656-552-9.
  18. 9-11 Research - 9-11 Research Does Not Endorse No-Jetliner Theories
  19. 9-11 Research - Sifting Through Loose Change: The 9-11 Research Companion to Loose Change Second Edition

Publications

See also

External links

Websites designed by Hoffman

Audio

Video

Conspiracy theory websites critical of Hoffman

Categories: