The Not-So-Scholarly Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Regarding the Eric Salter article against the no-planers, a commenter on my post about the article, makes some EXCELLENT points about "The Journal of 9/11 Studies" and Steven Jones:

Methinks Mr. Salter doth protest too much about disinformation. Either the issue is worth addressing in a scholarly article, or it is not.

His article is remarkably unscholarly for a publication purporting to be an academic journal. For example, use of such language as "the absurd missile hypothesis." You can refute it and let your reader come to the conclusion that it is absurd, but you can't call it "absurd." And not only is raising such a hypothesis in no way absurd, I really don't see how he has disproved the hypothesis. It could be a missile of some sort, with wings and a tail."

"Finally, Mr. Salter's statement about Dr. Reynold's "long-winded argument" is just plain rude. I as surprised that the editors of what purports to be a scholarly journal would allow such unprofessional, discourteous language.
-----
"I am, however, a little concerned that Dr. Stephen Jones made statements outside his area of expertise, essentially political statements, and sees himself as part of a "movement"

Because it is so obvious that the towers were demolished by some added energy, I wish he would simply say that as a physicist, fundamental physical principles show that it was impossible that some energy was not added. But it's a free country. In his role as editor of this journal that published Salter, however, I think it fair to criticize for not enforced higher standards. The long, paranoid "Commentary" at the end of Salter's articles about "limited hangouts," etc. , which Salter admits is his view as an "activist" -- how does such material belong in a scholarly journal? It doesn't.

Why didn't Salter simply say that certain arguments A, B, and C are being made, and I think they are implausible for reasons X, Y, and Z? I would have taken his arguments more seriously if he did not so overtly show that he is more concerned about how an argument is perceived than whether it has merit.

I also disagree with Salter's false dichotomy between "moderates who treat physical evidence responsibly" and "radicals" that don't. Salter says discussion of physical evidence should be "non-ideological," yet his paper drips with ideological concerns, many of them bizarre and self-referential.

And how is his friend's reaction to an inquiry relevant to whether the inquiry should be made?

Why is this crap being published in what is supposed to be an academic journal?"