Here is an interesting article written Nov. 2002. It shows that it is unlikely that box cutters could have gotten on-board commerical aircraft pre-9-11.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/12/terror/main528967.shtml

Boxcutters Weren't Allowed Pre-9/11

(AP / CBS)

America On Guard

Find out what actions are being taken to protect our nation in the air, water and on land.
(AP) A manual written by the airline industry years before the Sept. 11 attacks instructed airport screeners to confiscate from passengers boxcutters like those used by the hijackers, documents show.

Though the federal government did not specifically bar the objects before Sept. 11, the airlines were in charge of security and the manual they compiled was the guidebook for determining what items could be brought aboard flights.

The instructions were part of the Checkpoint Operations Guide, a manual issued by the Air Transport Association, which represents the major airlines, and the Regional Airline Association, the trade group for smaller carriers. The groups issued the guide to carry out Federal Aviation Administration regulations.

Dear Sean Hannity,

I was listening to your radio progam today when I heard a caller mention something about 9-11. He asked if you would ever have someone like Alex Jones on your show and debate him on the 9-11 issue. You then said that you have "had some of those nuts on our show before and quite frankly I'm not interested" (my apologies if the quote isn't ver batum but that is what I remember) I remember seeing the broadcasts when some of these folks were on your show. And all I remember is you calling them names such kook, lune, etc and I never seen where you presented anything invalidating their claims or providing any evidence supporting the official 9-11 commission story. This is especially true of Bill O'Rielly.

I have been looking into this issue for about 2 years now and quite frankly I don't understand how you cannot see that something is definately wrong with the official story. Of course unless you do some research you would never know something is wrong with it because it's an issue of ommitted data and you would never know data was ommitted unless you know what your looking for. Just yesterday I viewed a new video where firefighters were speaking on a payphone and all of the sudden you can hear a loud explosion. They turn around looking to see where it’s coming from. Another firefighter is walking and talking and tells people to clear out there is a bomb in the building. Another eyewitness is in the stairwell when he is knocked to the floor from an explosion that comes from underneath. From one count I got there are over 183 eyewitnesses who talk about hearing explosions or bombs going off or experiencing the explosions firsthand. Are we to just ignore all this eyewitness testimony? Let’s not forget William Rodriguez who felt an explosion coming from the sub-basement level of the WTC seconds before the first plane hit. His testimony was left out of the 9-11 commssion report. Why? How about the fact that Marvin Bush who had the security contract for the WTC and that the contract expired on Sept. 10, 2001. Is it just another remarkable coincidence? And why were bomb dogs pulled from the WTC just months before 9-11? Are we kooks for wanting to know the answers to these questions?

You come home from a two week trip and open the door to your bathroom only to find your dead dog laying there A bottle of shampoo laying next to him. You go to the dog dish in the kitchen and see all the food gone. You wonder why the dog sitter didn't do their job while you were away for two weeks. Your asking how can this happen? Crying and sulking you suddenly look and realize that the shampoo cap is off and your are now certain that the dog had been poisoned by ingesting the shampoo. You take the dog to the vet and sure enough the vet finds shampoo residue in his mouth and has determined that the dog had died from being poisoned. You then call the dog sitter to find out what happened only to find out she had been in a bad car accident and is in a coma She of course can't tell anyone that she was responsible for someones pet and to go take care of them. After further investigation you find out that the last time she came to take the dog for a walk and to feed him was 3 days before you got back from your trip. A few days go by and the dog sitter finally comes out of her coma and you go to visit her in the hospital. she happens to mention that she was really sweaty from the last time she took the dog for a walk and decided to take a shower. A few weeks go by and you begin to think about the dog sitter taking a shower. You may have thoughts about the shampoo. Did she use up all the shampoo? Did she forget to put the cap on? Maybe the trash can in the bathroom was tipped over and now your wondering if the bottle was thrown away. Did the dog tip the trash over and just lick the bottle realize it didn't taste very good? If so how is that enough to prove fatal to the dog? It must be. How else could the dog have died?  The truth of the matter is that dog had just finished eating then walked into the bathroom where he turned around and accidently closed the door on himself.  He tipped the trash can over to find something to eat or drink and found the shampoo bottle that he licked but didn't like very much.  The dog being trapped in the bathroom starves to death and did not die from poisoning.