Double standards at the Journal of 9/11 Studies?

First of all, I want to state my displeasure at being forced to intervene in this dispute between Jones and Wood/Reynolds. I do not understand all of Wood/Reynolds' criticisms of Jones, and was off-put by the tone of parts of their criticisms of Jones, though I would not characterize that tone as "ad hominem" argument. I also do not understand all of Jones' criticisms of Woods/Reynolds, and am not saying they are all invalid.

However, I agree with Dr. Reynolds that the "no planes" thesis has been proved; I think that this thesis is central to the truth and nothing but the truth about 9/11; and I am appalled by the standards applied by Jones in "rebutting" this thesis in pursuit of his pronounced "truth and justice." I consider his actions, seen as a whole, to be highly inappropriate and reckless.

For those reasons, I am compelled to continue my criticism of Jones' actions in relation to his "planes" thesis. There are many things I would prefer to do with my time.

I have already stated my concerns about the standard of "peer review" applied to Reynolds "no planes" paper as compared to the standard applied to Salter's "planes" paper, here:

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/my-concerns-about-professor-joness.html

I have now identified another application of double standards by Jones.

In his reply to Reynolds/Wood, Jones criticizes them for not addressing the oscillation data, stating:

It will not do in scientific inquiry to ignore data like this – even if one does not trust the source for some reason. In other words, the argument must be to the DATA, not to the source (ad hominem).

http://stj911.org/jones/Jones_Replyto_Reynolds_Wood.html

It is not clear to me why ignoring some data makes an argument ad hominem, but I agree that the data needed to be addressed and did so in my last post. My conclusion is that the data do not prove Jones' "planes" thesis, and thus do not contradict Reynolds' conclusion. Reynolds may have decided it was not necessary to address this data, but it is a fair point that it would be better to address it.

However, I am curious about Jones' statement that data has to be addressed even if you do not trust the source, because the journal he edits just published a paper that criticizes the Wood/Reynolds "Star Wars Beam Weapon" paper based on their use of seismic data that they disclose and acknowledge may not be accurate.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/Gourley5JAN07.pdf

In this paper, James Gourley criticizes Wood/Reynolds (WR) for relying on "corrupted data" because they acknowledge that the seismic data may not be accurate. Gourley's states this as his first argument, as follows:

Even assuming the WR paper is valid in all other respects, the WR thesis is based in part on faulty data, which invalidates a major part of the thesis . . ."

Yet it seems that Wood and Reynolds are doing here exactly what Jones criticized them for not doing---addressing data even though they have doubts about the accuracy of the data.

If Wood and Reynolds had not disclosed their doubts, Gourley and his editor Jones might have a point. However, as Gourley recognizes, Wood and Reynolds repeatedly stated their concerns about this data.

The first disclosure and acknowledgment is here:

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html

It is almost as if the data from 9/11 have attenuated, that peak movements have been reduced by some kind of filtering process. Does this difference reflect real data, that is, differences in real phenomena accurately recorded? Or have the data been filtered asymmetrically or differently? Or have the data been completely manufactured? We do not know, but for the sake of the analysis we use the Richter values reported. Could they have been lower than reported? Yes.

This seems to me a double standard by the Journal of 9/11 Studies when it comes to theories disputed by its editor.

I am stating no opinion as to the rest of Gourley's paper, and it may be unfair to criticize his paper for a double standard applied by his editor. I also do not attribute this double standard to co-editor Kevin Ryan. Further, I do not know if Jones was involved in the "peer review." However, I believe that he has exercised editorial control over the Journal of 9/11 Studies when it comes to the theories of Wood and Reynolds, and that my criticism is justified on that basis.