Ah, you are using air. I was using water in my previous post. You don't need for air to interact with a surface for the concept of Reynolds number to make sense. The inertial (upper) part of the Reynolds number has nothing to do with viscosity, so I am not sure why you think the low viscosity of air would affect that. Further, jets do have a mechanism for generating viscosity (much as a wall does). Your jet emerges from an orifice into a body of still fluid, meaning there will be velocity shear at the edges of the jet. Look up the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability.
Also, I am well aware of the generic definition of the Reynolds number. I am asking you what you used for the quantities in the definition. You used diameter as your length scale. Was that the diameter of the exit of your nozzle? What values did you use for density and viscosity? I am coming up with an answer that is two orders of magnitude smaller than yours if I do it for air. Why don't you show your work here to show us exactly how you came up with 120,000, because I can't reproduce it.
Finally, a note on the minimum critical Reynolds number:
For something like the flow in a pipe, where there is a well-defined critical Reynolds number that leads to turbulence, this doesn't mean that as soon as you reach that number, the pipe suddenly becomes turbulent. What it really means is that once you reach that number, the flow is now unstable to minute disturbances and will transition at some point. However, pipes are unusual in that they have a very well-defined critical Reynolds number that leads to transition. This is not generally the case in all fluid flows. Like I mentioned before, it is not uncommon for the Reynolds number (based on length) to reach well into the millions on something like an airplane wing before transition occurs. In short, be careful when drawing parallels between pipe flows and other situations.