I apologise if this has been covered and this is not a debunk rather a question. I don't get involved in the 9/11 thing outside of following 1 Facebook page and trying to leave amusing comments. However one thing has leaped out at me. There are often disdainful comments about a box knife been used as the main weapon in the hijacks. Now my vision of a box knife is like this In the UK we call them by the generic name of a "Stanley". Now that knife is a nasty bit of kit. Anyone that has watched UK news in the 70's and 80's may know the phrase "Stanley's gonna get ya" through the football hooligans (seen it, done that). For many it was the weapon of choice. However to the point, why is this knife seen as ineffectual and mostly benign? Why is it laughable that some guys threatened people with these tools? I have asked this on one other forum and the reply was, "Oh there was loads of military trained folk on board". My response was to highlight I am ex military and also a former psychiatric nurse and very conversant in control and restraint. However we possibly have a guy with a Stanley knife, either with a hostage or with people in close proximity, in an enclosed space which aircraft tend to be (I have sat in the back of a C130 on my own for 5 hours so that was not too enclosed). Who would be the first guy willing to get slashed or killed? We are not talking what we would think we would do but reality here. So why do truthers take the piss of the idea of Stanley knives?