Sites that are not biased do not have opinions on them. Even concordances have bias, but I prefer them and interlinears for my research. My personal study has consistently led me to agree with JW theology.
Scholars (my definition) would not agree with you.
Watchtowerism can be refuted by going no further than the public name of the cult "Jehovah's Witnesses". As is known the word "Jehovah" was an early English translation error. It was made by someone translating YHWH who did not understand the significance of the diacritical markings in the text and how they affect pronunciation. Even with that information it is impossible to be 100% certain of the intonation, but Yahweh is very close (yahwah, yalway are proposed as alternatives). Jehovah, however, is simply wrong.
Now, this in itself would not be fatal if the cult did not make claims as to being the restorers of the divine name of God. But replacing one incorrect word with another incorrect word does not a restorer make.
Thus the very premise of the watchtower cult if flawed.
To find out the other 999 ways the cult fails we need to look at history and the NT. For example do you know how many times 'False prophets' are referred to in the Bible? Now, are there any large, modern "Christian" cults that have made more false prophecies than the watchtower cult?
Nope, I could not think of any either.
998 to go.