After the 1998 embassy bombings, the U.S. government tried to develop a clearer picture of Bin Laden's finances. A U.S. interagency group traveled to Saudi Arabia twice, in 1999 and 2000, to get information from the Saudis about their understanding of those finances. The group eventually concluded that the oft-repeated assertion that Bin Laden was funding al Qaeda from his personal fortune was in fact not true. The officials developed a new theory: al Qaeda was getting its money elsewhere, and the United States needed to focus on other sources of funding, such as charities, wealthy donors, and financial facilitators. Ultimately, although the intelligence community devoted more resources to the issue and produced somewhat more intelligence, it remained difficult to distinguish al Qaeda's financial transactions among the vast sums moving in the international financial system. The CIA was not able to find or disrupt al Qaeda's money flows. The NSC staff thought that one possible solution to these weaknesses in the intelligence community was to create an all-source terrorist-financing intelligence analysis center. Clarke pushed for the funding of such a center at Treasury, but neither Treasury nor the CIA was willing to commit the resources. Within the United States, various FBI field offices gathered intelligence on organizations suspected of raising funds for al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. By 9/11, FBI agents understood that there were extremist organizations operating within the United States supporting a global jihadist movement and with substantial connections to al Qaeda. The FBI operated a web of informants, conducted electronic surveillance, and had opened significant investigations in a number of field offices, including New York, Chicago, Detroit, San Diego, and Minneapolis. On a national level, however, the FBI never used the information to gain a systematic or strategic understanding of the nature and extent of al Qaeda fundraising. Treasury regulators, as well as U.S. financial institutions, were generally focused on finding and deterring or disrupting the vast flows of U.S. currency generated by drug trafficking and high-level international fraud. Large-scale scandals, such as the use of the Bank of New York by Russian money launderers to move millions of dollars out of Russia, captured the attention of the Department of the Treasury and of Congress. Before 9/11, Treasury did not consider terrorist financing important enough to mention in its national strategy for money laundering.

Question: "Which U.S. agency was not able to find or stop al Queada's money flow and also was unwilling to commit resources for an all-source terrorist-financing intelligence analysis center?"

Response: "The FBI"

A: no

The highest point of a wave is the crest. The lowest point is the trough. The vertical distance between a crest and a trough is the height of the wave. Wave height is also called amplitude. The horizontal distance between two crests is the wavelength. Both amplitude and wavelength are measures of wave size. The size of an ocean wave depends on how fast, over how great a distance, and how long the wind blows. The greater each of these factors is, the bigger a wave will be. Some of the biggest waves occur with hurricanes. A hurricane is a storm that forms over the ocean. Its winds may blow more than 150 miles per hour! The winds also travel over long distances and may last for many days.

Question: "How are the lowest and highest points of a wave related to its amplitude?"

Response: "Lowest is Crest and Highest is Trough"

A: no

Electric charge is a physical property. It occurs between particles or objects. It causes them to attract or repel each other. They do not even have to touch. This is unlike the typical push or pull you may be familiar with. All electric charge is based on the protons and electrons in atoms. A proton has a positive electric charge. An electron has a negative electric charge. Forces on Charged Objects Most atoms are balanced electrically. They have the same number of positive and negative charges. Therefore, the number of protons equals the number of electrons. Neutrons do not matter as they have no charge. When an object loses some electrons, it becomes positively charged. There are now more protons than electrons inside the atom. The lost electrons may remain free. Or, they may attach to another object. The new object now has more electrons than protons. It then becomes negatively charged.

Question: "If a particle loses some of its protons, what is the particle's charge?"

Response: "When a particle loses protons, it becomes negatively charged"

A:
yes