Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Connie Chung Tonight
New Al Qaeda Tapes; Making the Case for War
Aired September 09, 2002 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CONNIE CHUNG, HOST: Good evening. I'm Connie Chung.
Tonight: less than two days before the one-year mark, how al Qaeda is marking the anniversary.
ANNOUNCER: Chilling new tapes of the 9/11 hijackers: a revealing look at what they were planning, what motivated them, and their unrelenting threats.
As the U.S. sets its sights on Iraq, President Bush looks for support at home and around the world.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We have no choice but to confront the threats head on.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Tonight: from the White House to the Pentagon to the United Nations, where the president will make his case for ousting Saddam Hussein.
The King brothers: convicted of killing their own father with a baseball bat.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Guilty of second-degree murder.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Tonight: two jurors who found the teens guilty of murder with a startling revelation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LYNNE SCHWARZ, JURY FOREMAN: We felt as a jury that the investigation didn't go far enough.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: And the man who defended Alex King said the jury still doesn't know who swung the bat. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES STOKES, ATTORNEY FOR ALEX KING: I believe it's more a problem of them thinking that there was two people that were being charged with having swung the bat and that caused the confusion in our jury's mind.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AARON BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Well, it is a grotesque sight.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: The anchor who led CNN's coverage of the attacks against America. Tonight, Aaron Brown shares his recollections of September 11.
This is CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT. Live from the CNN Broadcast Center in New York: Connie Chung.
CHUNG: Good evening.
Tonight: a chilling reminder that grief and American resolve are not the only reactions to this week's one-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on America. This reminder takes the form of a tape of the September 11 hijackers, apparently produced by al Qaeda, apparently intended to rally their troops by celebrating their mass murder while the rest of the world mourns and remembers.
Senior international correspondent Nic Robertson reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In this, the first video of a group of September 11 hijackers to be released by al Qaeda, there is little to hint at the atrocity these men are planning.
Relaxing in an Afghan-style classroom in Kandahar, the men bear little resemble to the clean-shaven look they used to enter the United States. According to Al-Jazeera, the Gulf news agency that obtained the tapes from al Qaeda, the men are: Hamza Alghamdi, who helped crash United Airlines Flight 175 into the south tower of the World Trade Center; Saeed Alghamdi, one of the hijackers aboard United Airlines 93, that ultimately crashed in a field of Pennsylvania; Wail M. Alshehri, a hijacker aboard American Airlines Flight 11, the first plane to hit its target; and Ahmed Alnami, another of the hijackers aboard UA 93.
Another of the tapes Al-Jazeera obtained: the suicide statement by Abdulaziz Alomari, one of the hijackers. It is the second such video al Qaeda has released. This hijacker, who flew with Mohamed Atta, into the north tower of the World Trade Center pours scorn on the United States and praises Osama bin Laden for his help. ABDULAZIZ ALOMARI, HIJACKER (through translator): God praise everybody who trained and helped me, namely the leader sheik, Osama bin Laden. May God bless him.
ROBERTSON: The third tape, Al-Jazeera claims, carries the voice of Osama bin Laden. We hear what could be the al Qaeda leader naming and praising the hijackers for the first time.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): These great men have consolidated faith in the hearts of believers and undermined the plans of the crusaders and their agents in the region.
ROBERTSON: For terrorism expert Peter Bergen, this tape in itself not conclusive proof bin Laden is alive.
PETER BERGEN, TERRORISM ANALYST: It obviously took place after 9/11, but that doesn't necessarily prove that it happened in the last month or so. This could have been material that was audio-recorded with bin Laden late last year.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROBERTSON: For those most familiar with al Qaeda, the tapes appear to indicate another one of al Qaeda's well-choreographed media campaigns, their release now an apparent reminder for the world of what al Qaeda sees as one of its greatest moments.
The question remains, however, is this a call from beyond the grave by Osama bin Laden or is he in fact still alive -- Connie.
CHUNG: Nic, I have to say that the release of these tapes gives me the chills. Is there an obvious reason -- I mean, is there a reason beyond the obvious reason, which is the anniversary?
ROBERTSON: There have been reports before that perhaps, when al Qaeda releases material, that they have intent to perpetrate another act of terror. Certainly, al Qaeda seemed to indicate that in their 1997 interview with ABC and their later bombings of the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
These tapes do appear to be intended, as far as we can see at this time, purely and simply for al Qaeda to essentially blow their own trumpet, if you will, around September the 11th.
CHUNG: Now, Nic, Al-Jazeera claims that we are hearing the voice of Osama bin Laden. Can intelligence officials and experts confirm that?
ROBERTSON: The recording is a poor-quality recording. Certainly, we haven't been able to definitively ascertain so far if in fact it is Osama bin Laden. And, of course, one of the keys there, it could be him, but when was it recorded? Was it recorded earlier this year or was it recorded recently? If it was recorded earlier this year, perhaps he may be dead by now. These are the things that experts will be looking at when they do listen to the tapes.
CHUNG: All right, thank you, Nic Robertson.
The emergence of new al Qaeda tapes came as President Bush ramped up his efforts to win international support for a military action against Iraq. He pressed Canada's prime minister face to face and other world leaders by phone to watch and listen to what he has to say when he addresses the United Nations on Thursday.
In the last couple of days, there's been a full-court press by the administration to build public support for an invasion of Iraq before Saddam Hussein uses his allegedly growing capacity for mass destruction against the U.S. or Iraq's neighbors.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We have to worry about the possibility that Saddam Hussein, for his own reasons, can use that growing capability on our friends and allies in the region, on U.S. forces in the region, or on the United States itself.
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: I don't think anyone wants to wait for the 100 percent surety that he has a weapon of mass destruction that can reach the United States.
DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Time is not on your side.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHUNG: Administration claims alone have not put all questions to rest, especially among critics who want to see evidence to back up those claims.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT RITTER, U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: I trust myself. I trust what I have experienced. I trust what I have seen with my own eyes. At this point in time, I do not have any information based upon my more than 10 years experience, on-the-ground experience, dealing with Iraq that backs up anything the Bush administration has been saying about Iraq. We need facts before we will support sending our troops off to fight and perhaps die in a war.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHUNG: Joining me now to give us some perspective on this ongoing debate: senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre; senior U.N. correspondent Richard Roth; and White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux.
Thank you all for being with us.
Suzanne, let's start with you.
We just heard Scott Ritter, the former U.N. weapons inspector speak. , He's had some harsh words for the Bush administration. Let's listen to another excerpt.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RITTER: Let's not be fooled here, OK? This wouldn't the first time a president of the United States has lied to the American public to facilitate a war. Think back to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and how we got entangled in Vietnam. I believe the same thing is happening right now.
If President Bush has a case to be made, if this administration has a case to be made for war against Iraq, then by God, they better start making it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHUNG: Suzanne, are administration officials taking Scott Ritter seriously?
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, here's what White House officials saying privately.
Despite the fact that Scott Ritter was chief U.N. weapons inspector for some seven years, they say, quite frankly, that he's out of the loop, that he's in no position to know what is either in Iraq or outside of Iraq, what Saddam Hussein owns or does not own. So they categorically dismiss what he's saying.
But, secondly, they also bring up the point, they say, his assertion, when weapons inspectors left in 1998, he says that 90-95 percent of the components of the weapons program is either dismantled or destroyed. They say, really, you can't rely on that. All you have to do is take a look at what happened back then, how those weapons inspections were carried out.
They say, really, in some cases, it was a joke, how they would take them to these weapons sites. They would bar them from the site. They would be held at the front door while Iraqi officials were moving stuff out of the back door, that you really can't rely on that figure.
And, third, they say that Scott Ritter is not in a position to really have the intelligence that administration officials have. They give one example, saying that there are satellite photos showing fresh construction at some weapons sites where inspectors had been before, possibly suggesting that there is some activity there. They realize they have to get inspectors on the ground to confirm that. But, quite frankly, they're really not taking what Ritter is saying very seriously.
CHUNG: All right.
Jamie McIntyre, what are your sources telling you about evidence that would support that Saddam Hussein is redeveloping weapons of mass destruction?
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN MILITARY AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, we are given to believe from Pentagon sources that there is more evidence, but not the kind of conclusive evidence that Scott Ritter is looking for. A lot of people have been looking for -- they keep comparing it to the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, when President Kennedy presented those unequivocal satellite photographs that showed a missile buildup in Cuba. The Pentagon says that kind of evidence, that so-called smoking gun, isn't going to exist. And what they've tried to do is refocus the debate not so much on Iraq's capability to field a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon, but to focus more on what they think they know more clearly, which is Saddam Hussein's intent, which is use those weapons as soon as he has the ability to do that.
So they're trying to shift the debate to that. They're trying to lower the standard of evidence, Secretary Rumsfeld making the case forcefully in the last couple of days that they're never going to have the kind of evidence that would, say, stand up in court for a criminal conviction. But, as you have heard all the administration folks say, they feel they can't wait for that level of evidence.
CHUNG: Richard Roth, how is the U.N. responding to all of this talk about war?
RICHARD ROTH, CNN SENIOR U.N. CORRESPONDENT: Well, Connie, I just came from a diplomatic reception, one of those that always sound more interesting and exotic than they really are, a couple of blocks from here at U.N. headquarters in New York.
And, by and large, all of the diplomats there and ambassadors are opposed to a unilateral U.S. strike. However, they would like to see the fig-leaf approval of the United Nations and, specifically, the Security Council before there's any action, military force or invasion, by the United States. One of the basic tenets of the United Nations, Connie, is that one nation is not supposed to invade or attack another without proper cause.
There's a lot of disagreement on whether that cause is already on the books. The United States and President Bush will be here on Thursday for what will be one of the most widely anticipated speeches in some time, as the president tries to make the case. And the lobbying will begin in force in public and behind closed doors here.
CHUNG: Richard, let's try to get a preview from Suzanne.
Suzanne, do you know what the president is going to say on Thursday when he speaks before the U.N.?
MALVEAUX: Well, white House aides are telling us that, first of all, the president, in very strong terms, is going to make the case that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the world.
But what's important here is, he's not only going to set up an ultimatum for Saddam Hussein, saying that, "Look, you have to allow weapons inspectors back in, comply with the agreements you made in order to end the Persian Gulf War or face the consequences." But, also, the president is going to really give an ultimatum to the United Nations, saying that: "Look, you have to enforce these agreements. Your very credibility is on the line. If you're not willing to do that, then at least allow the United States to move in and to take action."
CHUNG: All right, Jamie McIntyre, the Pentagon is moving troops and materiel into -- towards Iraq. And what is the significance? What does the mean?
MCINTYRE: Well, it's either significant or it's not.
And I don't mean to be flip, but the Pentagon is doing a lot of things under the rubric of routine operations that may or may not be totally routine: for instance, moving tanks and equipment from their storage depot in Qatar up to the Iraqi border in Kuwait. Well, that's explained by simply the fact that there are more troops exercising there in the wake of September 11.
The Navy is contracted for some commercial ships to move equipment. Well, the Pentagon says: "We do that all the time. We use commercial ships to move equipment. Don't read anything into it." Meanwhile, in the no-fly zones in the south, the last couple of days have been pretty intense. In fact, last week there was one very intense strike against an air command center.
Again, the U.S. says they're only responding to Iraqi provocations. It's what they've been doing for years now in enforcing those no-fly zones. But it still has the effect of diminishing Iraq's air defenses, something the U.S. would have to do as a prelude to war. So, you can look at all these routine actions and say, even if they are routine, they still are beginning to lay the groundwork for possible military action.
And, of course, you wouldn't be a very smart commander in the U.S. military if you didn't have an idea, a very good idea that the U.S. may very likely be going to war against Iraq in the near future.
CHUNG: Jamie McIntyre, Richard Roth, Suzanne Malveaux, thank you.
And still ahead: What was it like to tell the world about September 11? We'll talk to the man who anchored CNN's coverage that day: Aaron Brown.
Stay with us.
ANNOUNCER: Still ahead: Two jurors who found the King brothers guilty say they don't believe the boys killed their father. Why, then, did they convict the brothers of murder?
CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: Lynne, let's start with you.
Did you and the other jurors struggle to reach the verdict that you did?
SCHWARZ: I think we struggled when we first went into the jury room, because we had a lot of questions, that it didn't seem like a lot of the evidence meshed together. So we did a lot of talking about things that were bothering us that: "Well, I had a question about this. Well, how come that? And did you hear?"
But once we cleared up all that, it was just a natural progression that we went through to get to the verdict.
CHUNG: Are we correct in saying that the jury basically did not necessarily believe that the boys swung the bat that killed their father?
SCHWARZ: Exactly. We don't believe that. And that's the conclusion that we came to.
CHUNG: So were you just completely taken aback when you found out that Ricky Chavis was found not guilty?
SCHWARZ: I couldn't believe it. I just couldn't believe it, because, even though we weren't involved in that trial, it was -- when we reenacted this murder and tried to work it in every different way we could, there was no other scenario that we could come up with -- was that he had done it.
CHUNG: Then, why didn't the jurors turn to a not-guilty verdict concerning the boys?
SCHWARZ: Because we felt the boys were there. We thought they were there. They had observed. They had a little -- that they were involved. They were there, because of the confessions, because we could tell by the tape, the confession tapes, that they were there. They saw it.
It was just -- the words they used, the way they described it, it wasn't something you could be coached on or something that you could be taught. We just felt that they were there.
CHUNG: Mel Harris, how did you react when you heard that Ricky Chavis was found not guilty?
MEL HARRIS, JUROR: The same way. I couldn't believe it. They saw the same thing that we did and came to the conclusion that they did.
CHUNG: Now you probably know that all the lawyers involved in the first case -- that is, the Ricky Chavis case -- and the judge knew that Ricky Chavis was found not guilty and withheld that information from all of you. Do you realize that?
HARRIS: Well, that's -- yes, I did. And we knew it was going to be held from us at the jury, and the judge would know. And that is certainly the court's choice.
CHUNG: Well, you probably assumed that the judge would know. But did you assume that all the lawyers involved, including the defense lawyers for the boys, would know?
HARRIS: No, I did not.
CHUNG: All right.
Lynne, let's go back to you, then. I later learned -- this was just last Friday -- that, indeed, all the defense attorneys, every lawyer knew who was involved in the first case, and, in fact, the defense attorneys for the boys knew that Chavis was found not guilty. Is that shocking to you?
SCHWARZ: It wasn't right. And, at that point, it should have been a mistrial -- even though I'm not a legal person. I think that it would bias the cases. How could they keep proceeding on with our case when they already knew what the results were going to be, almost? It wasn't right for -- we were told that only the judge was going to know, and of course the jurors, and that it was going to be sealed, and then everybody would find out all at once. And that was not justice in any way.
CHUNG: That, in fact, was a lie, wasn't it?
SCHWARZ: It was. The judge lied.
CHUNG: Now, the defense attorney for Alex, the younger one, says that he has gathered some of the jurors to support an appeal. Has he spoken to you? His name is James Stokes.
SCHWARZ: He said that he was going to talk to me. And I said I would speak to him. And we haven't done that yet, so I don't know yet. But there's just so many inconsistencies. I mean, I hope to see this all cleared up.
CHUNG: And what do you hope the result is?
SCHWARZ: Well, what we really hope and what's going to happen is two different things. What I would have hoped from the beginning was that these boys, if they were going to be tried as adults and Ricky Chavis was an adult, it should have been one trial, all of us together with all the evidence, not just half for one trial and half for the other.
And then I think we would have got a fair verdict, not that we made a mistake on our verdict, but that we did what we could with the evidence that we had.
CHUNG: And do you believe justice would be served if Ricky Chavis was found guilty of the crime and the boys would be found guilty as accessories? Is that how you see it?
SCHWARZ: Exactly, because that's exactly how we thought it happened.
CHUNG: So, those boys, you believe, should not be spending close to the rest of their lives in jail, in prison?
SCHWARZ: Well, I don't think that the judge is going to give them the rest of their lives. I mean, second-degree murder isn't that kind of a sentence. And what we hoped was that they would be out in 12 years or 10 years and have already been rehabilitated, and to start a new life and go on.
CHUNG: All right, thank you so much, Lynne Schwarz and Mel Harris. We so appreciate your being with us.
SCHWARZ: Thank you.
HARRIS: Thank you.
CHUNG: Now, this case was already a legal nightmare even before the verdict, when prosecutors decided to pursue two different trials with two differing theories of who killed Terry King. Even before the jury's shocked reaction to Friday's verdict, speculation about appeals was rampant.
And joining me now, also from Pensacola: Alex King's attorney, James Stokes.
Mr. Stokes, thank you for being with us.
Can you tell us how little Alex is? I noticed that you put your arm around him when the verdict was read.
STOKES: Alex is doing about as well as can be expected. He's absolutely devastated by this. I know he wasn't prepared for it.
CHUNG: You mean he expected to be found not guilty?
STOKES: Based upon the fact that we thought we had convinced the jury that Ricky Chavis swung the bat. I was reasonably confident we had convinced the jury of that. And now it turns out that we have. And, as a matter of law, if the jury believed that, the only permissible verdict would have been not guilty.
Now, I don't think the jury made a mistake. And I'll explain that. I think what the jury -- happened to the jury was, I think they were misled by this entire process, where you put two people on trial, claim that they both swing the bat. The jury had to know: "Well, they couldn't have both done it. So they're obviously asking us to do something that is not quite clear from the jury instruction."
But, in fact, that's exactly what the prosecution had done. And they did it, I believe, to achieve the outcome they did.
CHUNG: Now, you knew in advance, did you not, that Chavis was found not guilty?
STOKES: Yes, we did. We were told that.
CHUNG: Well, then how can you say that you were going -- then how can you say you were going into this trial trying to prove that he was guilty, knowing that he was already found not guilty and that you were hoping for this not-guilty verdict for Alex?
STOKES: Because this is two separate trials. And that trial, the evidence in that -- well, I can't even call that first thing they did with Ricky Chavis a trial.
If you watched any part of it, you'd realize that the state was not attempting to convict Ricky Chavis. I firmly believe what they were trying to do was influence the outcome of Alex's jury. And, in fact, Alex has been convicted of being a principal to a crime and he has never been allowed to defend himself against that charge. And I think, just basic fairness would dictate...
CHUNG: You don't believe that he was able to do that on the stand?
STOKES: No.
CHUNG: You don't believe he was able to defend himself on the stand?
STOKES: Not against the charge that he was a principal to Ricky Chavis. That would have been -- that didn't even dawn on us that that was an issue. The prosecutor never argued it. And he was never allowed to present any defense to that allegation.
CHUNG: All right, Mr. Stokes, I'd like you to explain the basis of your appeal which no doubt you will file. And if you can do it in about 30 seconds, I'd so appreciate it.
STOKES: Well, explaining the due process clause of the Constitution in about 30 seconds, I'm going to
(CROSSTALK)
CHUNG: No, what I'm saying is what -- the overall basis of your appeal.
STOKES: That the trial that Alex King received was fundamentally flawed, fundamentally unfair, and Alex King should receive a new trial with a new jury. They can prosecute under whatever theory they wish. We are prepared to defend Alex.
CHUNG: All right, James Stokes, thank you so much. Perhaps we'll be able to talk to you again sometime. We'd appreciate it. Thank you.
And we'll be right back.
ANNOUNCER: Still ahead: from the restaurant on top of the world that fell in the September 11 attacks...
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL LOMONACO, FORMER EXECUTIVE CHEF, WINDOWS ON THE WORLD: We were running out of the building as debris was falling.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: ... the story of one man who picked up the pieces.
CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT continues in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: The Menendez brothers, Lyle and Erik, may just be the most famous parent killers since Oedipus. Although Kitty and Jose Menendez were killed by several shotgun blasts in their Beverly Hills living room in August 1989, it wasn't until six months later that police had dropped a theory of mob involvement and arrested the Menendez boys. After three years of legal wrangling over evidence, the case went to trial.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You went into that room and started firing your weapon before you even knew what your parents were doing, didn't you?
LYLE MENENDEZ, DEFENDANT: Yes. We were in a panic.
ANNOUNCER: Defense attorneys argued self-defense, claiming the parents abused their sons. Prosecutors said the boys were impatient to get the $14 million family fortune. The juries deadlocked. In the second trial, the judge barred the self-defense theory and Erik and Lyle were convicted of murder. What was their punishment? And were they able to go to prison together, as they requested? The answer when we return.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: What happened to Erik and Lyle Menendez, convicted of killing their parents? They were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Because they were partners in crime, the state sent them to prisons hundreds of miles apart. Lyle married an ex-model pen pal, but she divorced him after discovering he was pen pals with another woman. Erik got married to an unidentified woman in 1999. As inmates in for life, both brothers are denied conjugal visits.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHUNG: We'll continue.
(NEWS BREAK)
CHUNG: We'll be back in a moment.
ANNOUNCER: Still ahead: The man who led CNN's coverage of the September 11 attacks, Aaron Brown, looks back one year later.
CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT continues in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) CHUNG: If you were watching CNN on September 11, 2001, in the middle of all the chaos and panic and confusion, you had at least one constant through the nonstop coverage on that longest day: the face, the voice and perspective of then new CNN anchor Aaron Brown.
Here's a look at one of the day's most awful events, as Aaron was forced to interrupt a reporter's coverage of the Pentagon fire.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Wow.
Jamie, Jamie, I need you to stop for a second. There has just been a huge explosion. We can see a billowing smoke rising. And I can't -- I tell you that I can't see that second tower. But there was a cascade of sparks, and fire, and now this -- it looks almost like a mushroom cloud explosion. This huge billowing smoke in the second tower. This was the second of two towers hit.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHUNG: You know him now as the anchor of "NEWSNIGHT."
And Aaron joins me today to tell us a little bit about what it was like to sit in CNN's anchor chair for 10 hours.
Aaron, before we get to that, all of us remember where we were when we heard that the first plane had hit the tower. Where were you?
BROWN: I was on the West Side Highway in New York coming into work. I was expecting a very normal and easy day for me.
CHUNG: When did you realize the magnitude of this story -- while you were still driving in?
BROWN: I heard on the radio that the second tower had been hit. And I knew right away that the country was being attacked. It's no great piece of perceptiveness on my part.
And I remember thinking this -- I turned on to 34th Street -- that this is not a story. This is history. And whatever you do today, Aaron, your daughter's daughter's daughter will remember the words, will hear the words. So get it right and be calm.
CHUNG: So you were on the air for 10 hours straight.
BROWN: The first stretch. I did 10 hours. And then I rested for an hour. And then I did three more, I think, that day.
CHUNG: So what was going through your mind, because you had to follow the events as they were unfolding.
BROWN: Well, I think that was honestly what was going through my mind, mostly -- as you know, because you've done this -- there is so much traffic coming into your ear from producers. And there were two sets of producers, one in Atlanta and one in New York. And they're giving you information. And you're trying to make editorial judgments. Do you report this or not report this?
CHUNG: Now, you took an aerial trip above ground zero. For all of us, most of us, it was the first time that we had seen -- that we were looking at ground zero, were able to look down at it. It was riveting. Tell us about that.
BROWN: It's one of those moments in your life you don't forget.
I was very tired. And it was Sunday morning. And we basically had been working 18, 19 hours a day. And we'd sleep a couple. And I drove over to Staten Island. And we talked our way on a Coast Guard helicopter. And he flew us over.
CHUNG: And let's play a little bit of it right now.
BROWN: OK.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: As we zoom past that building, just in front of there. Tower No. 1 would have been right there, right where you are looking in between those two buildings.
There is a huge hole in the middle. I'll venture a guess here -- and it's only that -- that as one of the two towers came tumbling down, it crashed on top of what I believe was building No. 5.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHUNG: It had to be breathtaking for you seeing it.
BROWN: I'm not sure that that piece of sound was actually what was in my brain, which was: "Oh, my God. This is unimaginably more than I thought it was."
CHUNG: Did you ever go back to ground zero?
BROWN: Oh, I used to go to ground zero. In the early days, I'd go twice a week.
CHUNG: You're kidding.
BROWN: No, I would -- just by myself, would go down on the way in.
CHUNG: Why?
BROWN: Because something important happened there, because I needed -- look, I don't want to sound sappy ever, although I probably do a lot.
To me, I'm connected to that place in a way that's very hard for me to explain, that something extraordinary happened to my country there. Friends didn't come home of mine. My daughter's life will be forever different because of it.
In my reporting of the story, which is pretty much what I've done for the last year, I felt I needed to know that place better than anyone on the planet knew that place. How could I report this story well and totally if I didn't also feel what was going on there? And so, early on, I made a friend of a policeman, who would take me in and just leave me alone. And I would mostly sit on a wall and watch people doing their work.
And sometimes, I would talk to people. And I would do it twice a week. And then, as things cleared out there, then I would go once a week. And now I guess I probably go once a month.
CHUNG: You know, I know that you weren't able to spend a lot of time with your wife and your daughter during this entire stretch when you were on the air for CNN. Did they understand?
BROWN: You mean, did they understand? Sure, at an intellectual level, yes. "Dad's working. This is big. Dad's working. This is what he does." My wife was a reporter, so she really understands. But my daughter...
CHUNG: Who was how old at the time?
BROWN: She was 12, almost 13. I mean, she turned 13 in the middle of all this.
It was hard for her. I mean, she needed her dad there, too. And I think she felt -- it's not I think she felt. I know she felt, because she said: "You seem to be owned by everybody. You seem to be owned by the world. And you don't belong to us anymore."
CHUNG: What did you say to her?
BROWN: I said what I often have to say to my child, which is: "I think you're right," but that "This is what I've prepared my life to do. And it's important for me to do this."
CHUNG: Do you think that people have healed?
BROWN: It's amazing to me how close to the surface our feelings still are.
And I still feel that way. I cannot watch the stuff without my heart breaking yet again. And I assume, on Wednesday, when we find ourselves oddly in the same place thinking about the same things on a day that will undoubtedly be as pretty as that day was, that, again, I will be uncomfortably aware of how close to the surface our feelings still live here.
CHUNG: Aaron, thank you.
BROWN: Thank you.
CHUNG: We'll see you on "NEWSNIGHT, right?
BROWN: Yes.
CHUNG: In just a little bit.
BROWN: Every night, never a day off.
(LAUGHTER)
CHUNG: At 10:00 Eastern time. OK.
On Wednesday, you and I will be together again, co-anchoring CNN's prime-time coverage of the one-year anniversary, from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Eastern time. And CNN's all-day coverage of 9/11, "America Remembers," begins Wednesday at 6:00 a.m. Eastern time, 3:00 Pacific.
And we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: One of the toughest things to come to terms with about September 11 is how simple chance in so many cases determined whether people lived or died. Some who were rarely at the towers died because they were there by chance. Others who were always at the towers lived because they were not there by chance.
This is the story of one man whose skills made him one of the most prominent chefs in New York and whose life was saved by chance.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHUNG (voice-over): Michael Lomonaco was on top of the town, literally. He was executive chef at Windows on the World, a premiere restaurant 1,300 feet above the city. With its magnificent views, it isn't any wonder people were drawn here to the 107th floor of 1 World Trade Center.
LOMONACO: It was certainly a certain innocence to have gone up to the top of the Trade Center every day and kind of thought, "The world is our oyster." It's so important to me to kind of see the world in an optimistic way.
CHUNG (on camera): Oh, you're one of those positive thinkers.
LOMONACO: I think so. I'm a realist, but I think anything is possible.
And I think that was one of the glorious things about Windows on the World, which was only a restaurant, but it was more than a restaurant. It made things seem as if anything was possible. It was a very hopeful place.
CHUNG (voice-over): Hopeful and appealing. Lomonaco turned Windows into a magnet for not just New Yorkers, but everyone in the world. He changed the menu from international cuisine to American.
LOMONACO: People came from all over the world knowing Windows was this restaurant with a view. But they came looking for something more than that. It was a beacon on American cooking, the finest that American fields and farms and streams have to offer.
CHUNG: It was so successful, it became America's top-grossing restaurant in 1999 and remained so until...
(on camera): September 11, you arrive at work at about 8:15. Normally, you take a right turn in the north tower and take an elevator up to Windows on the World. But this morning, you did something different. What happened?
LOMONACO: On that morning, instead of going into the elevator bank area, I went into the shopping concourse level, which was the level below both tower one and tower two. And there were a bank of shops. And I went in there to get my eyeglasses fixed.
CHUNG: But why did you decide, at that critical moment, that you were going to try and get your eyeglasses fixed?
LOMONACO: I was having a problem with my reading glasses. September 10, I called my optometrist and I said, "Can you get me in?"
He said: "Not for two weeks. I'm booked up solid for two weeks."
And I thought: "This is unbelievable. I can't wait two weeks for glasses." And, that morning, as I was driving to work, I said to Diane...
CHUNG: Your wife.
LOMONACO: "What do you think? I'll go into an eyeglass shop, a LensCrafters shop. What do you think?"
She said: "You don't have vision problems. They're just reading glasses. Go ahead and do it." So, actually, Diane pushed me in the direction of making that decision.
CHUNG: Oh, my gosh.
You would have been right above where the plane hit. Is that right?
LOMONACO: Right.
My office was on the northwest corner of 106. And, more than likely, I would have been in the offices right on 106. And, at 8:46, I was sitting in the optometrist's chair just finishing. I felt a rumble that I mistook for the subway, which passed -- the subway tunnels were right below there. And I thought, "Boy, that's a lot more of a rumble than I have ever noticed from the subway before."
And then it was just two minutes later that they were evacuating the building. People from the Port Authority were directing people out and just telling people: "Run. Run. Get out."
CHUNG: What did you see as you looked up? LOMONACO: I could see the sky was full of debris. But I also saw pieces of metal as big as a car that were falling. And I recognized pieces of metal as parts of the building. The sheathing of the twin towers was that silvery metal. And I thought: "This is not good. This is really bad."
CHUNG: Did you have any idea of what happened?
LOMONACO: You take things in. Your eye takes things in and then your brain has to decipher it. I couldn't believe what I was seeing.
The firemen were out there and everyone was looking up. So I knew it was something happened up there. And I couldn't imagine what had happened. And I just imagined it must have been an explosion, something. And I went to call Diane to tell her I was safe. And I said: "I'm going back to the building to see if I can help in any way." And on my way back to the building, it was 12 minutes later or so.
As I looked up, I saw building two, south tower, explode in a fireball. And it was then, Connie, when I saw that, I thought, this is -- this is no accident. This is no -- this is just terrible. This is horrible. And I was, at that moment, really overtaken.
CHUNG: When both towers eventually collapsed, were you still in the area?
LOMONACO: Everyone began to run north to get away and to get away from this dust cloud, which was traveling. And we've seen the images of that. I went all the way to my wife's office, which was about a mile away. And she could see what was happening at the twin towers, which was why I called her in the first place.
CHUNG: So, when you saw her...
LOMONACO: We met on the street. It was...
CHUNG: A chance meeting?
LOMONACO: Completely.
She was -- when she saw the collapse of building two on TV in her office, she went down and started to head downtown to find me. And we met on the street. I don't know how we would have found each other otherwise, but we met on the street. It was just -- I felt that that was meant to be...
CHUNG: Yes.
LOMONACO: ... that we would find each other that way.
CHUNG: Yes.
LOMONACO: And we walked home.
CHUNG: How many friends and colleagues do you think you lost? LOMONACO: We lost 79 co-workers that day.
CHUNG: Michael, why do you think you were saved?
LOMONACO: I made a random decision. And I had no inkling. I had no idea that that random choice I made would bring me the luckiest day of my life. I was standing on the street and looking up and thinking of all of my friends in that building. There was no way I could even really enjoy my luck.
CHUNG: Does your wife look at you differently now? Does she feel as if she played a role in your survival?
LOMONACO: Diane has always been grateful for the good fortune, the luck that we both had that day, because she can only imagine what other wives, spouses and families have gone through who weren't fortunate, who were not as lucky as she.
CHUNG: Is there some guilt?
LOMONACO: I think if someone is in a position to help other people and then does not, then you can understand how someone might feel a guilt of having survived. But I think, really, survival means that people who can go on can honor those who can't.
CHUNG: Most people who envision sort of cheating death say, "Well, then, I will finally live my life to the fullest," yes?
LOMONACO: Yes.
CHUNG: "And I won't worry about the little things. And I won't let anything get to me anymore, because I've seen the big picture." True?
LOMONACO: It would be a great thing to be able to do that. I wish that I could be that changed. But human nature is human nature. And somehow we are the people we are. But I do understand that life is meant to be lived. And let's live it and let's try to enjoy it together.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHUNG: So honest, huh?
Michael Lomonaco is now consulting chef at Noche, a new restaurant from the same people who owned Windows. Noche also employs 60 others from Windows on the World.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: Tomorrow, I want you to meet three men who will speak to you from the heart. We won't tell you anymore about it, but I do want you to meet them. And coming up next on "LARRY KING LIVE": the most trusted man in America for all time, anchorman Walter Cronkite. "And that's the way it is."
Thank you for joining us. And for all of us at CNN, good night.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
