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 23:29, 13 February 2007 editNuclearUmpf (talk | contribs)3,904 edits luckily you can't. can someone please tell me what theory Hoffman created that makes him a theorist?← Previous edit Revision as of 23:36, 13 February 2007 edit undoTom harrison (talk | contribs)Administrators47,534 edits add refsNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Jim Hoffman''' is a ] based in ], who has worked in mathematical visualization and produced the first visualization of Costa's ]. Hoffman is known as the publisher of several websites documenting the ] and advocating ].<ref name="meigs">{{cite news |url=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4199607.html |title=The Conspiracy Industry |author=Meigs, James B. |publisher=Popular Mechanics |date=October 13, 2006}}</ref><ref name=nym>{{cite news|first = Jacobson|last = Mark|url = http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index4.html|title = The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll|work = Feature|publisher = New York Magazine, Inc.|date = 2006-03-27|accessdate = 2006-08-25}}- ''Disputing the no-crash theory, Jim Hoffman has argued, “This is just the sort of wackiness defenders of the Official Story harp on to show how gullible and incompetent we conspiracy theorists are supposed to be.”''</ref><ref name="salon">{{cite news|first = Farhad|last = Manjoo|url = http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2006/06/27/911_conspiracies/index_np.html|title = The 9/11 deniers|work = Feature|publisher = Salon.com, Inc.|date = 2006-06-27|accessdate = 2006-08-21}}</ref>
{{sprotected}}
'''Jim Hoffman''' is a ] based in ], ], who has worked in ] and produced the first visualization of Costa's ]. Hoffman has published several websites presenting ] and material he says documents the ].


==Mathematics== ==Mathematics==
Line 10: Line 9:
He also is co-author of a patent for an ] with increased thermal efficiency.<ref></ref> He also is co-author of a patent for an ] with increased thermal efficiency.<ref></ref>


==September 11, 2001 attacks== ==September 11, 2001 attacks ==
Since early 2003,<ref></ref> Hoffman has been writing about the ] (WTC) and other aspects of the September 11, 2001 attacks, which he believes involved insiders within the United States government.<ref></ref> 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, ]. He has also given talks and been interviewed on radio shows across the US and Canada.<ref> </ref> His work has examined the collapse of the smaller ], and he is critical of the official explanation of that collapse. Hoffman has also written a critique of the official ] (]) report on the building collapses,<ref></ref> a critique of the 2006 NIST FAQ,<ref></ref> and critiques<ref></ref><ref></ref> of articles about the ] by the ] magazines '']'' and '']''. The Editor of ''Popular Mechanics'', formerly of ], James B. Meigs, describes Hoffman as a "leading conspiracy theorist."<ref>{{cite web|first = James B.|last = Meigs|year = 2006 |url = http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4199607.html|title = The Conspiracy Industry |work = Science |publisher = Hearst Communications, Inc. |accessdate = 2006-10-16}}</ref> Since early 2003,<ref></ref> Hoffman has been writing about the ] (WTC) and other aspects of the September 11, 2001 attacks, which he believes involved insiders within the United States government.<ref></ref> 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.<ref> </ref> His work has been focused primarily on the collapse of the smaller ], and he is critical of the scientific explanation of that collapse. Hoffman has also written a critique of the official ] (]) report on the building collapses,<ref></ref> a critique of the 2006 NIST FAQ,<ref></ref> and critiques<ref></ref><ref></ref> of articles about 9/11 conspiracy theories by the ] magazines '']'' and '']''. The Editor of Popular Mechanics, formerly of ], James B. Meigs, describes Hoffman as a "leading conspiracy theorist."<ref>{{cite web|first = James B.|last = Meigs|year = 2006 |url = http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4199607.html|title = The Conspiracy Industry |work = Science |publisher = Hearst Communications, Inc. |accessdate = 2006-10-16}}</ref>


⚫ In June, 2006, at the ], Dr. ], a ] now on administrative leave 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 disputed the no-crash theory concerning ] and in an interview for Salon, alleged ad hominen attacks on ]s, stating, “This is just the sort of wackiness defenders of the Official Story harp on to show how gullible and incompetent we conspiracy theorists are supposed to be.”<ref name="salon">{{cite news|first = Farhad|last = Manjoo|url = http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2006/06/27/911_conspiracies/index_np.html|title = The 9/11 deniers|work = Feature|publisher = Salon.com, Inc.|date = 2006-06-27|accessdate = 2006-08-21}}</ref>


⚫ 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"/>
⚫ Dr. ], a ] formerly with ], has credited Hoffman's WTC7.net website and described his work 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 what he considers 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>

==9/11 Guilt: The Proof Is In Your Hands==

In a 2006 DVD collaboration with ], ], Hoffman produced a section entitled 'Proving Controlled Demolition of World Trade Center Building 7 and the Twin Towers.' In his presentation, Hoffman offers five "features" and then five "proofs" of demolition along with some pointed graphics. "He shows beyond question, I think, that all three Buildings were taken down by different methods of controlled demolition," according to Paul, who added "The Twin Towers were exploded as no buildings have been before or since and about seven hours later World Trade Center Building 7 was imploded in a classic, conventional demolition."


==References== ==References==
Line 30: Line 23:
* {{cite journal | author=Hoffman et al | title=Ordered Bicontinuous Nanoporous and Nanorelief Ceramic Films from Self Assembling Polymer Precursors | journal=Science | year=1999 | volume=286 (5445) | pages=1716 - 1719 | url=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/286/5445/1716}} * {{cite journal | author=Hoffman et al | title=Ordered Bicontinuous Nanoporous and Nanorelief Ceramic Films from Self Assembling Polymer Precursors | journal=Science | year=1999 | volume=286 (5445) | pages=1716 - 1719 | url=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/286/5445/1716}}
* {{cite journal | author=Hoffman et al | title=Triply Periodic Bicontinuous Cubic Microdomain Morphologies by Symmetries | journal=Macromolecules | year=October 2001| volume=34 (17)| pages=6083 -6089| url=http://0-pubs.acs.org.lib1.npttc.edu.tw/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/mamobx/2001/34/i17/abs/ma0019499.html }} * {{cite journal | author=Hoffman et al | title=Triply Periodic Bicontinuous Cubic Microdomain Morphologies by Symmetries | journal=Macromolecules | year=October 2001| volume=34 (17)| pages=6083 -6089| url=http://0-pubs.acs.org.lib1.npttc.edu.tw/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/mamobx/2001/34/i17/abs/ma0019499.html }}
*Hoffman, Jim and Paul, Don. ''"Waking up from our Nightmare: The 9/11 Crimes in New York City"'' ISBN 0943096103 *Hoffman, Jim and Paul, Don. ''"Waking up from our Nightmare: The 9/11 Crimes in New York City"'' ISBN 9-43096-051-2


==See also== ==See also==
* ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
Line 48: Line 38:


===Audio=== ===Audio===
* Visibility 9-11 interviews Jim Hoffman in two parts. , and . (September 2006) * Visibility 9-11 interviews Jim Hoffman in two parts. , and . (] ])
* - 'Don Paul - Jim Hoffman', interviewed by Sue Supriano (] ]) * - 'Don Paul - Jim Hoffman', interviewed by Sue Supriano (] ])
* - interview ] ] * - interview 28sep2005

===Video=== ===Video===
* - Jim Hoffman WTC 9/11 Demolition Analysis video
*, youtube video


] ]
] ]
⚫ ]
] ]
] ]
] ]
⚫ ]


] ]
<br />

Revision as of 23:36, 13 February 2007

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 known as the publisher of several websites documenting the September 11, 2001 attacks and 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 scientific 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. The Editor of Popular Mechanics, formerly of Entertainment Weekly, James B. Meigs, describes Hoffman as a "leading conspiracy theorist."

In June, 2006, at the 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium, Dr. Steven E. Jones, a physicist now on administrative leave 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. Meigs, James B. (October 13, 2006). "The Conspiracy Industry". Popular Mechanics.
  2. Mark, Jacobson (2006-03-27). "The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll". Feature. New York Magazine, Inc. Retrieved 2006-08-25.- Disputing the no-crash theory, Jim Hoffman has argued, “This is just the sort of wackiness defenders of the Official Story harp on to show how gullible and incompetent we conspiracy theorists are supposed to be.”
  3. ^ Manjoo, Farhad (2006-06-27). "The 9/11 deniers". Feature. Salon.com, Inc. Retrieved 2006-08-21.
  4. Article on scientific visualization
  5. 9-11 Research - About 9-11 Research
  6. Computer graphics tools for the study of minimal surfaces
  7. The Split P Surface
  8. The Lidinoid Surface
  9. US Patent & Trademark Office, Patent Full Text and Image Database - patent 4,584,972
  10. 9-11 Research - About Jim Hoffman
  11. 9-11 Research - The 9/11/01 Attack: Means, Motive, and Precedent
  12. 9-11 Research - Talks and Radio Interviews
  13. 9-11 Research - Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century
  14. A Reply to the National Institute for Standards and Technology's 'Answers to Frequently Asked Questions'
  15. 9-11 Research - Scientific American's Dishonest Attack On 911Research
  16. 9-11 Research - Popular Mechanics Attacks Its "9/11 LIES" Straw Man
  17. Meigs, James B. (2006). "The Conspiracy Industry". Science. Hearst Communications, Inc. Retrieved 2006-10-16.
  18. "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" by Steven E. Jones
  19. Ray Griffin, David (2004). The New Pearl Harbor. Interlink. ISBN 1-56656-552-9.
  20. 9-11 Research - 9-11 Research Does Not Endorse No-Jetliner Theories
  21. 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

Categories: