@taoeffect@mstdn.io

Ok, I was thinking more of pointing out unreliable sources in the page as it is right now, not a list of links which include many hours of videos and articles in physics, which is not really my field =D

I usually just write in naturalist articles, I can try to make sense of the sources you link just in term of reliability, but I wouldn't push those sources in the page unless I am sure about it.

For example:
[2], europhysicsnews, seems like does not have any peer review on the journal and wouldn't be considered a reliable source by any standard in wikipedia, regardless of the article (also check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11_attacks/Archive_62#Europhysics_News )

[4] Video is not available
[4.1] and others quote wikipedia, which is not to be used as a source, and is weird since you are directly accusing it of being unreliable and intentionally false in the first place

Others are hours long videos or long papers on physics which, with all my good will, but don't have the knowledge or time to watch and study.

Can't really help you here, I'm out of my depth in knowledge and can't watch many hours of videos to make sense of it. Meanwhile, I don't see partiality on the page, and the archives are very, very long, but a good read to see why a source was or was not added.

Just as a note to your website: would be better to point directly to the source instead of your tweet which itself links to the source.

FTR: I have no position on the 9/11 happenings, I don't want to insinuate you are wrong, or that you are right. I just don't know enough about it