is the elaborateness of their project".

Can you elaborate on what you are disturbed about the "elaborateness of their project?" Is it because it seems improbable that just a couple of seemingly regular Joes would have the time and resources to take on such a huge organized effort? Their research project is quite impressive, and comprehensive. I especially like that they don't just look at the Pentagon (contrary to some recent big lies by the usual suspects) but they also look at Shanksville/UA93 "crash", WTC, and other aspects of 9/11, though the Pentagon has received the most focus and resources.

A healthy level of skepticism/cautiousness is called for in regards to any high profile group in the 9/11 truth movement. I waited till this year before I really took CIT seriously, though I've been following them for a few years. I've seen their work progress and their evidence accumulate until I finally agreed that they have definitively disproved the OCT of AA77 having crashed at the Pentagon, as well as provided what seams to be the most plausible alternative theory of any others I'v heard of that explains what might have actually happened. After their release of National Security Alert video last month, I felt that they had achieved a level of credibility to the point where I would recommend their latest video.

I've also watched how the attacks and smears against CIT become more venomous and shrill seemingly in direct proportion to their increasing quality of evidence and recognition. I've also noticed that their fiercest critics seem to be virtually all the usual suspects who have a history of either trying to divide the movement with LIHOP or of engaging in disinfo tactics on a consistent basis.

The "Face to the Names" thread on the CIT forum seems to be the focus of the most recent and troubling controversy about CIT. Some of the more shrill accusations suggest that it is a "hit list" or some such. I disagree. I don't see anything in that thread that suggests that the CIT folks are threatening or implying that those people will be stalked or attacked, beyond cyber insults and demands that most of those people debate them publicly (with the possible exception of one statement by Aldo in a possible humorous remark to another anonymous poster claiming to be the target boy's mother, which is probably a joke, that "kicking him in the teeth would be a good solution" to the "mother" asking what should she do with her son. Yea, it's very bad form, especially for a group of people who are trying to gain the respect and recognition as serious researchers, to use that language and humor on a public forum. They (CIT researchers) also claim that all of that information including names and pictures were obtained on public web pages. This may be mainly a case of a metaphorical sharing of notes amongst themselves, like "who are these people who are attacking us?".

After all the vicious attacks and unfair harassment that they've had to deal with from the get go, it's not surprising that people in that situation who appear to have dedicated so much of their time and resources for helping the cause of truth and offering what appears to be valuable evidence and research, to eventually react out of frustration and anger, and push back at what they are probably convinced is an organized professional disinformation campaign, by people who they are probably convinced are not sincere truthers, in ways that may not be the most diplomatic or saintly.

Have they made some mistakes that have given their opponents ammunition? Probably. Have they done things that make them beyond the pale? I don't think so. Are they human? Most likely.