Bin Laden reportedly discussed the planes operation with KSM and Atef in a series of meetings in the spring of 1999 at the al Matar complex near Kandahar. KSM's original concept of using one of the hijacked planes to make a media statement was scrapped, but Bin Laden considered the basic idea feasible. Bin Laden, Atef, and KSM developed an initial list of targets. These included the White House, the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, and the World Trade Center. According to KSM, Bin Laden wanted to destroy the White House and the Pentagon, KSM wanted to strike the World Trade Center, and all of them wanted to hit the Capitol. No one else was involved in the initial selection of targets. Bin Laden also soon selected four individuals to serve as suicide operatives: Khalid al Mihdhar, Nawaf al Hazmi, Khallad, and Abu Bara al Yemeni. During the al Matar meetings, Bin Laden told KSM that Mihdhar and Hazmi were so eager to participate in an operation against the United States that they had already obtained U.S. visas. KSM states that they had done so on their own after the suicide of their friend Azzam (Nashiri's cousin) in carrying out the Nairobi bombing. KSM had not met them. His only guidance from Bin Laden was that the two should eventually go to the United States for pilot training. Hazmi and Mihdhar were Saudi nationals, born in Mecca. Like the others in this initial group of selectees, they were already experienced mujahideen. They had traveled together to fight in Bosnia in a group that journeyed to the Balkans in 1995. By the time Hazmi and Mihdhar were assigned to the planes operation in early 1999, they had visited Afghanistan on several occasions. Khallad was another veteran mujahid, like much of his family. His father had been expelled from Yemen because of his extremist views. Khallad had grown up in Saudi Arabia, where his father knew Bin Laden, Abdullah Azzam, and Omar Abdel Rahman (the "Blind Sheikh").

Question: "Who were the two that Bin Laden told KSM needed to go to the United States for pilot school?"

Response: "Hazmi and Khallad"
OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

A: no

Problem: Boone, Ia. -Poor and elderly people may soon go without legal representation in Boone County. Boone County Legal Aid, which for 31 years has provided legal services to those who couldn't afford them, will close in February if a $10,000 grant from Prairie Meadows Racetrack and Casino is not awarded. The legal service is one of the few programs in Iowa that offers legal representation to those who qualify without turning to the state for its services. "It is a very sad situation, but that's the fact," said Alan Schroeder, city attorney and supervisor of Boone County Legal Aid. For the past two years using money mostly from the city and county, Schroeder has upheld the outfit alone, taking on about 60 clients a year, and settling cases that range from domestic abuse to bankruptcy. He also has a private practice. If the legal service closes, he's unsure where his clients will go. The city of Boone gave Schroeder $6,300 in July to resolve pending cases, said Kathy Berg, Boone's finance officer. Without that, the program might already be closed. "All governments are having problems with finances," Boone Mayor George Maybee said. "No one else stepped in. The county didn't. The state didn't." Donovan Olson, chairman of the county Board of Supervisors, said the board quit funding the legal service in July because it felt the county didn't need it. Drake University ended its funding after the 2000 spring semester "for a variety of reasons," Suzanne Levitt, the law professor who oversaw the program, said via e-mail. Olson said Schroeder must prove Prairie Meadows is the primary money source for the board to grant the program any more money. Schroeder ran the program without the help of law students or Drake, which had provided as much as two-thirds of the money in some years.

Question: "How many different sources of funding has Boone County Legal Aid had in the past?"

Answer: "3"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
Answer: no

Question:
If you build a campfire, you start with a large stack of sticks and logs. As the fire burns, the stack slowly shrinks. By the end of the evening, all that is left is a small pile of ashes. What happened to the matter that you started with? Was it destroyed by the flames? It may seem that way. What do you think happened? The truth is that the same amount of matter still exists. The wood changed not only to ashes, but also to carbon dioxide, water vapor, and other gases. The gases floated off into the air, leaving behind just the ashes. Although matter was changed, it was not created or destroyed. Because the same amount of matter still exists, we can say that matter is conserved. You may wonder how it can be conserved if something is now missing? Assume you had measured the mass of the wood before you burned it. Assume you had also trapped the gases released by the burning wood and measured their mass and the mass of the ashes. What would you find? The ashes and gases combined have the same mass as the wood you started with. This example illustrates the law of conservation of mass. After reading the above, is "A small pile of ashes" the correct answer to the question "What is left when the stack shrinks?"? OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer:
yes

Input: The CIA's senior management saw problems with the armed Predator as well, problems that Clarke and even Black and Allen were inclined to minimize. One (which also applied to reconnaissance flights) was money. A Predator cost about $3 million. If the CIA flew Predators for its own reconnaissance or covert action purposes, it might be able to borrow them from the Air Force, but it was not clear that the Air Force would bear the cost if a vehicle went down. Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz took the position that the CIA should have to pay for it; the CIA disagreed. Second, Tenet in particular questioned whether he, as Director of Central Intelligence, should operate an armed Predator." This was new ground,"he told us. Tenet ticked off key questions: What is the chain of command? Who takes the shot? Are America's leaders comfortable with the CIA doing this, going outside of normal military command and control? Charlie Allen told us that when these questions were discussed at the CIA, he and the Agency's executive director, A. B." Buzzy" Krongard, had said that either one of them would be happy to pull the trigger, but Tenet was appalled, telling them that they had no authority to do it, nor did he. Third, the Hellfire warhead carried by the Predator needed work. It had been built to hit tanks, not people. It needed to be designed to explode in a different way, and even then had to be targeted with extreme precision. In the configuration planned by the Air Force through mid-2001, the Predator's missile would not be able to hit a moving vehicle. White House officials had seen the Predator video of the "man in white." On July 11, Hadley tried to hurry along preparation of the armed system. He directed McLaughlin, Wolfowitz, and Joint Chiefs Vice Chairman Richard Myers to deploy Predators capable of being armed no later than September 1.

Does the response "Because they were the property of the Airforce and the cost of a Predator was too great" correctly answer the question "Why did the CIA want the Airforce to pay if a Predator was downed?"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
***
Output:
yes