According to the article linked from the second link in the OP this is on the occasion of promoting a book on these pyramids, and additional would “would depend on additional funds”. Grounds enough for taking this with a grain of salt IMO.
Why the insistence on calling it a ‘pyramid’? In what way is its shape pyramidical? If, on the other hand, it’s a ‘pyramid’ because it’s a man-made structure containing a burial, then (1) there’s no evidence (so far) that it does contain a burial and (2) that would make it a ‘tumulus’, not a ‘pyramid’. But then ‘European tumulus found?’ doesn’t have quite the same hype potential.
Then there are all the as-yet unanswered questions? Is the hill man-made or has it just been altered? Do the ‘sandstone slabs’ form a structure or are they, well, just sandstone slabs? How big are the ‘stairs’? Have they actually found ‘ancient labyrinths’, ‘rooms and a monumental causeway’, or do they just have some indistinct geophysics results? Do they have any dating evidence at all? And who the hell thinks that ‘pyramids were always built in pairs’?
The mainstream archaeological community is apparently unanimous in opposing Semir Osmanagic’s claims. The linked article contains what I presume to be an error (emphasis mine):