Imagine a glass of your favorite drink that never became empty. Now think about what really happens. You take a drink and there is less in the glass. You keep drinking and soon it is all gone. Good thing you have more to refill your glass. What if there would never be any more of your favorite drink. What would you do? Now you know the difference between renewable and non-renewable. Its too bad that many things here on Earth will run out. This includes some of our natural resources we depend on. Things like oil will not last forever. There is a limited supply. Someday, we will run out, so then what? At current rates of use, coal will last about 300 years. Petroleum will be used up in just a few decades.

Question: "What are other resources that will be gone?"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer: "Petroleum"

Response: yes

Bin Laden and his aides did not need a very large sum to finance their planned attack on America. The 9/11 plotters eventually spent somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000 to plan and conduct their attack. Consistent with the importance of the project, al Qaeda funded the plotters. KSM provided his operatives with nearly all the money they needed to travel to the United States, train, and live. The plotters' tradecraft was not especially sophisticated, but it was good enough. They moved, stored, and spent their money in ordinary ways, easily defeating the detection mechanisms in place at the time. The origin of the funds remains unknown, although we have a general idea of how al Qaeda financed itself during the period leading up to 9/11. General Financing As we explained in chapter 2, Bin Laden did not fund al Qaeda through a personal fortune and a network of businesses in Sudan. Instead, al Qaeda relied primarily on a fund-raising network developed over time. The CIA now estimates that it cost al Qaeda about $30 million per year to sustain its activities before 9/11 and that this money was raised almost entirely through donations. For many years, the United States thought Bin Laden financed al Qaeda's expenses through a vast personal inheritance. Bin Laden purportedly inherited approximately $300 million when his father died, and was rumored to have had access to these funds to wage jihad while in Sudan and Afghanistan and to secure his leadership position in al Qaeda. In early 2000, the U.S. government discovered a different reality: roughly from 1970 through 1994, Bin Laden received about $1 million per year-a significant sum, to be sure, but not a $300 million fortune that could be used to fund jihad. Then, as part of a Saudi government crackdown early in the 1990s, the Bin Laden family was forced to find a buyer for Usama's share of the family company in 1994. The Saudi government subsequently froze the proceeds of the sale. This action had the effect of divesting Bin Laden of what otherwise might indeed have been a large fortune. Nor were Bin Laden's assets in Sudan a source of money for al Qaeda. When Bin Laden lived in Sudan from 1991 to 1996, he owned a number of businesses and other assets.

Question: "How was Usama cut off from the funds of the Bin Laden family?"

Response: "His family disowned him"
OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

A: 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 handled the U.S. air defense on 9/11?"

Answer: "11 was not conducted in accord with preexisting"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
Answer: no

Elaan is a declaration of war against the reign of terror unleashed by the ganglords . The story revolves around an upright and principled Police Officer , A.C.P. Ramakant Chaudhary whose eldest son Vikas is killed in a pre-planned accident . But the A.C.P. is unable to nab the culprits for want of valid evidence . Consequently , the A.C.P. , his wife Revati and younger son Vishal are griefstricken over the loss of young Vikas . While the atmosphere in the city is already vitiated by the atrocities of ganglords Baba Khan and Manna Shetty who enjoy the support of some unscrupulous police personnel , the A.C.P. vows to make the ruthless gangsters bite the dust , without taking the law in his own hands . On the other hand , Vishal an angry young man , can not stand this injustice since the police had failed to arrest his brother's killers , and he silently resents his A.C.P father's inaction in dealing with the culprits . The ideologies of the father and son clash - Which lead to a conflict between a dutiful father and a reckless son . The only one who understands the agony of Vishal is Mohini , the daughter of head constable Devkinandan Sharma . The day comes when Vishal confronts Baba Khan and Manna Shetty Which leads to tension and gory situation for the A.C.P. , as the ganglords threaten to eliminate the A.C.P. as well as his wife Revati and son Vishal .

Question: "Who carried out the pre-planned accident against Vikas?"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer: "Baba Khan and Manna Shetty"

Response:
yes