Infinite-energy.com. Linked from this comment. Their "Who We Are" page uses the word "new" twenty-eight times.

The faq includes this lovely bit:

Who is opposing New Energy science and technology? Only fools and small-minded people would oppose research on something so wonderful—even if there were only a 10% chance that it was correct (and the true percentage is far higher —100%, in our opinion). Sad to say, there are plenty of fools arrayed against New Energy. [...] There are plenty of science Ph.D.s and even Nobel laureates who have obscenely attacked cold fusion, vacuum energy, hydrino physics, and investigations into loopholes in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Their credentials are worthless. What they have to say on the subject of New Energy usually amounts to no more than uninformed bigotry. These people apparently believe that science has come to an end—that the broad outlines of physics and biology, as described in current texts, are on absolutely secure grounds. One of the greatest buffoons in the sad array of enemies is Robert Park of the American Physical Society and the University of Maryland, whose “What’s New” electronic column gives weekly cues to an army of incompetent “science journalists,” who then misinform other journalists, the establishment’s so-called “scientists,” and cowering government bureaucrats and politicians.

Emphasis added. Like are you kidding us with this stuff? Scare-quotes, ad-homs, hyperbole, obvious distortions... Also, they think the chances all these theories are correct is 100%? ONE HUNDRED FUCKING PERCENT?

Same goes for the "suppressed science" article above. "A new Inquisition"?! Btw, see this review of the book where that quote comes from.

Going back to the 9/11 discussions you routinely cited this paragon of rationality and professionalism. The claims the site made were instantly rebutted with a cursory google search.

And this is coming from someone who thinks contemporary physics has some problems and who has had threads downvoted where I suggested Lorentzian ether theory hadn't been falsified (though I don't know if this was the cause of the downvotes. I still don't understand what I was doing wrong there). A few of these sources might even end up being right about things. But their tone, style and positions are strong evidence that they are cranks and what they say should be taken with the appropriate grain of salt.