Problem: The Finnish government and major creditors of bankrupt shipyard Waertsilae Marine Industries Oy agreed in principle to form a new company to complete most of the troubled shipyard's backlog of 15 ships. The new company will attempt to limit the shipyard's losses, participants said. "The situation is that the bankruptcy court will get out of the shipbuilding business. Everything will be taken over by the new company," said Christian Andersson, executive vice president of Oy Waertsilae, former parent of Waertsilae Marine. Once its ownership is finalized, the new company will open talks with state-appointed receivers to buy or lease Waertsilae Marine's shipyard facilities. Subcontractors will be offered a settlement and a swift transition to new management is expected to avert an exodus of skilled workers from Waertsilae Marine's two big shipyards, government officials said. Under an accord signed yesterday, the government and Union Bank of Finland would become major shareholders in the new company, each injecting 100 million Finnish markkaa ($23.5 million). Oy Waertsilae is to contribute 200 million markkaa, most of it as subordinated debt, and take a minority stake in the new company. Customers holding contracts for Waertsilae Marine's undelivered ships are expected to subscribe most of the remaining 170 million markkaa in share capital, government officials said. Waertsilae Marine's biggest creditor is Miami-based Carnival Cruise Lines Inc. Carnival, which has three ships on order from Waertsilae Marine, presented claims for $1.5 billion damages in the bankruptcy court this week. Waertsilae Marine's bankruptcy proceedings began Tuesday in a Helsinki court.

Question: "What government and creditors agreed to form a new company?"

Answer: "Swedish Government"
Answer: no

Problem: Clarifying the Record The defense of U.S. airspace on 9/11 was not conducted in accord with preexisting training and protocols. It was improvised by civilians who had never handled a hijacked aircraft that attempted to disappear, and by a military unprepared for the transformation of commercial aircraft into weapons of mass destruction. As it turned out, the NEADS air defenders had nine minutes' notice on the first hijacked plane, no advance notice on the second, no advance notice on the third, and no advance notice on the fourth. We do not believe that the true picture of that morning reflects discredit on the operational personnel at NEADS or FAA facilities. NEADS commanders and officers actively sought out information, and made the best judgments they could on the basis of what they knew. Individual FAA controllers, facility managers, and Command Center managers thought outside the box in recommending a nationwide alert, in ground-stopping local traffic, and, ultimately, in deciding to land all aircraft and executing that unprecedented order flawlessly. More than the actual events, inaccurate government accounts of those events made it appear that the military was notified in time to respond to two of the hijackings, raising questions about the adequacy of the response. Those accounts had the effect of deflecting questions about the military's capacity to obtain timely and accurate information from its own sources. In addition, they overstated the FAA's ability to provide the military with timely and useful information that morning. In public testimony before this Commission in May 2003, NORAD officials stated that at 9:16, NEADS received hijack notification of United 93 from the FAA. This statement was incorrect. There was no hijack to report at 9:16. United 93 was proceeding normally at that time. In this same public testimony, NORAD officials stated that at 9:24, NEADS received notification of the hijacking of American 77. This statement was also incorrect. The notice NEADS received at 9:24 was that American 11 had not hit the World Trade Center and was heading for Washington, D.C. In their testimony and in other public accounts, NORAD officials also stated that the Langley fighters were scrambled to respond to the notifications about American 77,178 United 93, or both. These statements were incorrect as well. The fighters were scrambled because of the report that American 11 was heading south, as is clear not just from taped conversations at NEADS but also from taped conversations at FAA centers; contemporaneous logs compiled at NEADS, Continental Region headquarters, and NORAD; and other records.

Question: "Who coordinated the defense of US airspace on September 11?"

Answer: "Pilots"
Answer: no

Problem: Magnets are able to place a force on certain materials. This force is called a magnetic force. The force a magnet exerts is a little different from the forces you may normally think about. You exert a force on a book when you lift it. You also exert a force on the pedals of your bicycle. In both those cases, those forces cause a change. The change you see in both these cases is called motion. Magnets, too, can produce change. They can produce motion just like you do. Unlike you, magnets do not have to touch something to exert a force. A magnetic force is exerted over a distance. Thats right, a magnet can push or pull certain items without ever touching them. Thats how the maglev train works. Do you know another type of force that does not require objects to touch? These forces are known as non-contact forces. Another type of non-contact force you may be familiar with is gravity. Gravity too can cause changes in motion. Gravity holds our moon in orbit without touching it.

Question: "The force that holds our moon in place, is an example of what type of force?"

Answer: "Non-Contact Force"
Answer:
yes