(CNN) -- Japan's prime minister conceded defeat in parliamentary elections Sunday, signaling the return to power of the Liberal Democratic Party and ending the brief rule of the disappointing upstart Democratic Party of Japan. Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda pledged to step down as party president after exit polls showed a smashing loss in lower house voting. The party, once seen as a breath of fresh air in Japanese politics, came to be regarded as increasingly ineffective. "We got a regrettable result," Noda said. "The result is everything in the politics. The biggest responsibility lies on me. I will quit as the partly leader of DPJ." The move clears the way for the return to power of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, the current leader of the conservative-leaning Liberal Democratic Party, or LDP. "The Japanese people will be keenly looking whether the LDP can meet with their expectations," Abe said in interviews after the polling. The LDP ruled the country almost continuously since its establishment in 1955 until it was forced from power three years ago by the DPJ. Public broadcaster NHK said the LDP and its coalition partner, the new Komei party, gained at least 302 seats in the 480-seat lower house. CNN's main affiliate, TV Asahi, reports the LDP/Komei coalition gained at least 312 seats. The official count is expected to be released Monday. The LDP is inheriting a struggling economy, regional tensions and questions over Japan's role in Asia. "The economy is at the bottom. It's our first mission to turn it around," Abe said.

Question: "As the current prime minister quits as the party leader who can return to power?"

Answer: "Natashi Oguawa"

Response: no

Right after the Pentagon was hit, NEADS learned of another possible hijacked aircraft. It was an aircraft that in fact had not been hijacked at all. After the second World Trade Center crash, Boston Center managers recognized that both aircraft were transcontinental 767 jetliners that had departed Logan Airport. Remembering the "we have some planes" remark, Boston Center guessed that Delta 1989 might also be hijacked. Boston Center called NEADS at 9:41 and identified Delta 1989, a 767 jet that had left Logan Airport for Las Vegas, as a possible hijack. NEADS warned the FAA's Cleveland Center to watch Delta 1989. The Command Center and FAA headquarters watched it too. During the course of the morning, there were multiple erroneous reports of hijacked aircraft. The report of American 11 heading south was the first; Delta 1989 was the second. NEADS never lost track of Delta 1989, and even ordered fighter aircraft from Ohio and Michigan to intercept it. The flight never turned off its transponder. NEADS soon learned that the aircraft was not hijacked, and tracked Delta 1989 as it reversed course over Toledo, headed east, and landed in Cleveland. But another aircraft was heading toward Washington, an aircraft about which NORAD had heard nothing: United 93. United Airlines Flight 93 FAA Awareness. At 9:27, after having been in the air for 45 minutes, United 93 acknowledged a transmission from the Cleveland Center controller. This was the last normal contact the FAA had with the flight. Less than a minute later, the Cleveland controller and the pilots of aircraft in the vicinity heard "a radio transmission of unintelligible sounds of possible screaming or a struggle from an unknown origin." The controller responded, seconds later: "Somebody call Cleveland?"This was followed by a second radio transmission, with sounds of screaming.

Question: "At what time did the last normal contact between United 93 and the FAA?"

Answer: "9:45"

Response: no

The second major point on which the principals had agreed on March 10 was the need to crack down on terrorist organizations and curtail their fund-raising. The embassy bombings of 1998 had focused attention on al Qaeda's finances. One result had been the creation of an NSC-led interagency committee on terrorist financing. On its recommendation, the President had designated Bin Laden and al Qaeda as subject to sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This gave theTreasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) the ability to search for and freeze any Bin Laden or al Qaeda assets that reached the U.S. financial system. But since OFAC had little information to go on, few funds were frozen. In July 1999, the President applied the same designation to the Taliban for harboring Bin Laden. Here, OFAC had more success. It blocked more than $34 million in Taliban assets held in U.S. banks. Another $215 million in gold and $2 million in demand deposits, all belonging to the Afghan central bank and held by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, were also frozen. After October 1999, when the State Department formally designated al Qaeda a "foreign terrorist organization," it became the duty of U.S. banks to block its transactions and seize its funds. Neither this designation nor UN sanctions had much additional practical effect; the sanctions were easily circumvented, and there were no multilateral mechanisms to ensure that other countries' financial systems were not used as conduits for terrorist funding. Attacking the funds of an institution, even the Taliban, was easier than finding and seizing the funds of a clandestine worldwide organization like al Qaeda. Although the CIA's Bin Laden unit had originally been inspired by the idea of studying terrorist financial links, few personnel assigned to it had any experience in financial investigations. Any terrorist-financing intelligence appeared to have been collected collaterally, as a consequence of gathering other intelligence. This attitude may have stemmed in large part from the chief of this unit, who did not believe that simply following the money from point A to point B revealed much about the terrorists' plans and intentions. As a result, the CIA placed little emphasis on terrorist financing. Nevertheless, the CIA obtained a general understanding of how al Qaeda raised money.

Question: "One of the results of March 10th meeting was?"

Answer: "Air strikes on terrorist training camps"

Response: no

Above were just a few things that caused habitat loss or change. There are many ways in which living organisms can affect their ecosystem. In some areas, it is because of fire management. Fire is a natural event, so managing fire correctly is very important. In other areas, fisherman have taken too many fish from one area. This places the species at risk of extinction. It also affects other living things that may rely on these fish for food. The image below shows a picture of a mine. Mining changes the Earths surface. This area may once have been a forest or a prairie. Think about how many plants and animals may once have lived here. Now it is a giant hole in the ground. Pollution is also a major factor in habitat loss and change.

Question: "How does fishing impact ecosystems?"

Answer: "It reduces the number of fish and other animals may be reliant on fish too"

Response:
yes