Those scholars who hold the NWT is a "biased twisted Bible" are, as far as I know, entirely made up of those who differ with the WTS theologically, especially regarding the trinity.
As everybody except the JWs "differs with the WTS theologically," you are formally right of course. Although it doesn't take an orthodox Trinitarian to criticise the NWT.
On the other hand, as I mentioned earlier, the very first criticisms of the NWT I heard (or at least took seriously) were from within, namely from the brother who translated it entirely into French (he was not exactly a "scholar", but he cared enough about his job to learn the Biblical languages). Of course I have no written proof of it, but if you look at the original French translation (1974) carefully enough you can find some clues. Such as in John 1:1, which he managed to translate La Parole était dieu (lower case to "god" but no indefinite article). Only in the 1995 revision (presumably by someone else) the French NWT came closer to the English, La Parole était un dieu.
As I said earlier, IMO the major fraud in the NWT is the massive importation of "Jehovah" into the NT, especially where it destroys the argument of the text (I sometimes wondered if the NWT translators bothered to read the text or if, in JW style, they just translated "verses" and did not realize the impact of their option on the global reasoning). This case is only indirectly related to the Trinity doctrine.
Another trinity-connected yet absurd choice from a purely translational viewpoint is the transformation of the paradoxical, reciprocal use of "in", such as "I am in the Father and the Father is in me," into "in union with". Substituting a commutative relation ("in union with") to a non-commutative ("in") makes the whole statement a tautology (which it is not originally). -- To be honest, I've seen the same thing in a couple of "dynamic" translations too.
A not trinitarian, yet still doctrinal example, is the case of the quotation marks to the name "Samuel" in 1 Samuel 28... How could any translator justify that? It is a doctrinal decision that the text cannot mean what it obviously means.