. >> rose: welcome to our program, tonight we begin a series of conversations about what happened on septembe 11th, 2001. the meaning of it all and what has happened since then. we begin with janet napolitano secretary of the department of homeland security. this interview was recorded on august 18th. >> what dow fear most? >> i don't rank them but i will tell you what is the most difficult to prevent i

is-- an individual actor who is not conspiring with anyone, who decides that he or she is going to set off an ied. >> rose: we continue with philip zelikow, a professor the university of virginia executive director of the 9/11 commission, this interview was recorded on august 11th. >> it's how you handle it after it happens. whether you learn from it, whether you absorb the shock, whether you are resilient. and the biggest thinge've learnein the last ten years is to learn more about how to be resilient society. that mitigates these problems, manages them, and learns it to live with them so that a tiny group of zealots don't make us dance to tir tune. >> rose: we conclude this evening with three film makers, jules naudet, gedeon naudet and james hanlon. their film is called"9/11 ten years later"ness i feel privileged and honored to be

inspiredvery day by what i have seen on that day. the first responders answering the call despite all the danger. and that is what basically gives me eney every single day d such pride to have witnsed that, firsthand. >> rose: 9/11 yesterday and today when we continue. funding for charlie rose was provided by the following:

captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new yo city, this is charlie rose. . >> rose: janet napolitano is here, the secretary of the department of homeland security. the agency was created in the aftermath of 9/11 ahead of the 10th anniversary, there is much reflection and questions including are we safer, is al qaeda weaker? how are today's threats more

diffuse and different. i'm pleased to have secretary janet napolitano back at th table to talk about this. welcome. >> thank you. >> rose: where are we ten years later? are we safer? is al qaeda different? will another attack occur of a different nature? what do we know? >> well, i think overall we are safer and that the kind of plot and the kind of activity that occurred on 9/11 we would have many opportunities to stop now. better intelligence, better colation of intelligence. background checks on people in flight schools. hardening of cockpit doors on planes. hardening-- exactly, so you know layer after layer. so that kind of complex plot we have given ourselves and not given ourselves but we have many layers now that would protect us. on the other hand, core al qaeda is as you mentioned more diffuse. there's al qaeda in the arabian pensula which has

been responsible for the underwear bomber and the cargo bombs in yemen in the last two years. you've got other al qaeda type groups. and then we have, of course, the rise of our own home group terrorists, home group extremists that we have to deal with. so the threat is more diffuse. >> rose: what do you fear most? >> i don't rank them. but i will tell you what is the most difficult to prevent is-- . >> rose: better question. >> an individual actor who is not conspiring with anyone, who decides that he-- he or she is going to set off an ied. >> rose: the intent to do harm to america on part certain groups remains high and intense and forward moving? >> that's correct. that's correct. and unfortunately, the environment in which we live. so we accept that, you know, in a way as an elevated

level of risk that is what we live with. but we also know that we have many different ways now to ierrupt plots or things that are aimed at the united states. >> rose: what's the level of cooperation with foreign governments? >> we have very-- . >> rose: depends. >> obviously it depends. but with our allies, with the u.k., with the g-6, the g-8, the whole alphabet soup, very close. and there's a whole network now of home secretaries, homeland security secretaries, interior ministers that before 9/11 really didn't meet with each othe but now meet and speak with each other regularly. and that reflects the international nature of what it is we're dealing with. >> rose: in the last ten years we've also seen a seen or rapid acceleration of technology. does that give them more weapons if they want to do bad thin?

>> well, it gives them some more weapons. it gives us some more capabilities. and so -- >> countermeasures. >> evolving technologies. better ways, better sensors, better screeners, better-- you name it, we have better technology. and better all the time. and that's something we've been investingn as a people is better chnology, and so for example, i know a lot of people, you know, find some of the security measures at airports burdensome. well we're working to move to a more risk based system but we're also deploying much better technology in the airports. >> explain risk based because my understanding is that is what the israelis used. >> they use aorm of it. and what that is, is really trying to devine which passgers you need to pay more attention to and which you don't. which passengers are known passengers, they fly all the

time. they may have already supplied with you their biometrics, their histories and all the rest. you don't really have to worry as much about them as somebody who you haven't seen before, whose's an unknown traveler, who play have an itinerary that is taking them to countries that we have particular concern about. and so risk-based means taking your intelligence, the information you get and using that and applying it against the passenger base. >> rose: what did you learn from the 9/11 commission. because i had philip zelikow here recently. >> we took the commission's report and reviewed it again. and looked at the recommendations that applied ecifically to dhs. and wrote a report recently that said okay, what have we done pursuant to each of those recommendations to make americans safer. and we have achieved i think substantial progress in all of the recommendations, aimed at the department of homeland security.

from intelligence gathering and colation to better securi technologies, to better interaction amongst the deral vernment but also information sharing to state and local governments. so i think, i think we've made a lot of progress in a very short period of time. >> what questions are still the for you? >> well. >> rose: out of that experience. >> you know, i think that what i keep asking is what is the next plot, what is the next type of attack on the united states? will it come from abroad. will it come from within. will it be an explosive, a poison, a biological agent. are we prepared, do we have, are cities prepared, are states prepared. will people know what to do? do we have the ability to get information out that's accurate and get it out quickly. so i really spend my time trying to get ahead of what

could occur as opposed to reliving all that occurred in the past. >> everybody seems to suggest there's surprise that there has not been an attack. it says something about your work and says something about the work of police partments and i assume a range of other peoe. are you surprised? >> i'm pleased. there's be a lot of work and there are thousands of men and women who wake up every day and go to work to prent these things from occurring. >> i assume, obviously we know that. >> we know there are plots. >> and we know there have been efforts and they have been thwarted. >> that is correct. >> rose: but sometimes you wonder i we have been lucky or fortunate. >> and sometimes you make your own luck. >> rose: and you create also a sense of people on a plane to watch out themselves. >> that's right. and one of the things we are communicating is look, everybody has some roll to play. we have a very straightforward slogan. if you see something say something. >> rose: i was going to say that. >> if you ride on the amtrak

train on the east coast, you hear it on the amtrak if you ride the metro in d.c. you hear it, you see it in signs and sports arenas around the country. but, and we're trying to get it into the public's consciousness that look, we don't have to live in fear but we should be living just aware of our surroundings. >> rose: it's a new reality. >> exactly right. >> rose: what do we know about al qaeda today and especially after the killing of osama bin laden? >> i think core al qaeda has been daged. their ability has been impaired. but again, froa homeland perspective, we have actually seen more active in the last couple of years out of aqap as opposed to core al qaeda. so we have to really look at all of the islamist groups. >> rose: for the benefit of er, what does that mean? >> islamist jihadist, those groups that seek to attack us because of who we are. >> yeah. >> rose: we have people dedicated in the pentagon and i've read about this specific select group of

people who ybe report directlyo the chairman of the joint chiefs or something who are just dedited to al qaed but i just find it fascinating that you know, that our sense of, as part of the overall effort, you know, now that we know that there is particular groups that we spend a fair amount of time in terms of all the intelligent sources including the pentagon trying to focus on where they are and who they are and how they are changing. and i assume because what happened to osama bin laden i don't think came from there i think this came from somewhere else, cia. >> there are a number of people in a variety of federal agencies who spe time gathering intelligence about al qaeda, about aqap, about other related groups, that the question is, are we analyzing it properly and are we sharing it properly. >> are we. >> amongst ourselves but also across the country. >> rose: are you assured we are? >> i'm very confident that

we're sharing it in a much more robust way than we did on 9/11. and based on what i see and what i d, there is a tremendous amount of suring that goes on. >> rose: and was there a treasure trove that came out on the raid of -- >> on bin laden sm. >> rose: yes. >> you know, i think there. >> one would say much of it confirmed what we believed. and so not so much new or novel but confirming that yes, we were putting our efforts in the right place. >> rose: confirmed from the computer files and the hard drive and all of that that came out. >> the other things that were taking place. >> rose: what's the hardest part of it for you sm is it what you have just simply said, trying to figure out where the next attack might come from? >> that's the most intellectually challenging part of it. sometimes-- . >> rose: it's a river which the new stream is pulling into it all the time. >> exactly. that's a nice way to put it, actually. >> rose: you know, i think the most difficult part is, this is a huge department. and putting it together and

making sure it's organized and people are all rowing in the same direction and know what the priorities are, that's a management challenge. >> rose: what do we know about home group? and how many variations of it are there, because we see all kinds of acts. we see an act like someone like norway, and ask you yourself, is there norway possibilits here, we knew what happened in oklahoma city. >> right. >> rose: that is terrori too. >> right, right. i worked on that casing actually, when i was a u.s. attorney. that was probably my first exposure to it, a terrorist act. look -- >> shows you what one man n do with minimal support. >> rose: with hugely committed and idea logically driven to an end. >> that's right, that's right. and soe have to be looking attack particulars, technies, behaviors that might give us an early warning sign that someone is contemplating such-- not merely contemplating but is taking steps to mmit such an attack.

and so, for example, we had a case a couple of years ago involving a proposed explosive based on hydrogen per oxide. letting police around the country know look for unusual purchases of hydrogen per oxide in their area. that's the kind of very basic flow of information back and forth to washington from washington to the country, that homeland security is designed to facilitate. >> how goodtoday ten years later is our intelligence of home group terrorism? >> we looked at the whole growth of violent extremism in the united states and how do you counterit. and what would be an effective way to protect people. and our conclusion was tha neighborod policing properly trained on tactics and techniques commonly used by violent extremists would be the best way. neighborhood police, why? because they have that level of trust and communication

withhe people who live-- . >> rose: and they know their place. >> exactly right. and tactics and thniques becausthese things, you know, there are things that can be shared. and so we prepared a whole training curriculum for police officers of the united states. they can either take it at our training facilities, or indeed on-line. and we've already trained tens of thousands of police officers. >> rose: where are we in terms of the new beps that are available. what else is new about that? in terms of technology, in terms of the kinds of things that people are using that we didn't know were possible. >> well, i think-- . >> rose: or is it mostly in the laboratory now. >> one of the things that we are concerned about are the use of poisons. and as opposed to explosives. >> rose: slipping into what stream? >> into the water supply or -- >> water and air io, depends on which kind of agent are you talking about. >> rose: that is the kind we don't even have any great

sense about hofar along that might be. right. just think of common-- public, you know, common poisons, cyanide, ricin, for example. >> rose: right. >> a so one of the thins that we've been focused on is making sure that we are sharing information around the country, make sure the first responders are up to date on their training on how to respond and the like. not because we have specific intelligence about such a plot but because we know that that could be the next logical step. >> rose: if the president would call you in and say do you have all the tools you need wa, would you say? >> i would say that the basic tools i need are properly trained supervised men and women located in the proper places. and yeah, i could use a few more coast guard cutters and i could use a few me

thises and thats but it's really the personnel we depend on. >> rose: if you can get the quality of people or the number of people or both. >> well, i think if we can sustain what we have an keep working with them and keep improving their abilities, equipping them with the best technologies we can, that is what the department 6 homeland security needs. >> rose: is it still possible that we believe that we n take away the incentive of people who want to do this, that we understand why they do it and we can take away that incentive? is that a long-term goal does it have any reality? >> there is a beauty to that goal. i mean ihink that some o the resources we spend on the things that homeland security does, boy it would be nice to be able to spend that on health care or research or whatever. >> rose: or education. >> or education. >> rose: taking way the rage

or whater it might be. >> exactly. as soon as you say that you have to make the point that a lot of people who have done this, we're not operating certainly out of rage, we are certainly not poor or disvanged. some of the people even from 9/11 were middle class. >> let remember terrorism didn't begin with bin laden, it doesn't end with bib laden. so let's get that straight. and i don't think we understand clearly what-- what is a terrorist enough to say if we do this we will always take away the risk of terrorism. >> rose: or take away the numbers. >> i thi we have to assume that they're part of the environment in which we live. and then properly prepare ourselves for that. and like i said with information, with the proper tools, so that we don't live in fear but we live in reality. >> rose: but being able to he lame nature the circumstances and conditions that drive people into movements and organizations that want to take violence into their own hands.

>> and there i think we don't understand yet what moves an individual alg. >> rose:hat's my point. >> and so you can't put it into an organizational box. i think we have to understand more about the human mind and the motivation there than we do right now. and that is something that we don't have a good handle on. >> rose: thank you. >> thank you. >> great to see you. >> always. phip zill cow is here, an author and professor served as executive director of the 9/11 commission it was an independent bipartisan panel charged with investigating the attacks of september 11th. in july 2004 the commission released its findings. the report has been republished to mark the 10th anniversary of 9/11. afterwards zelikow reflects on where we are today. i am pleased to have him back at this table and to talk about where we are today as we take a hard look at 9/11 ten years later.

lcome. >> welcome. >> there are many things to talk about. but i want to focus on 9/11 and the commission report. where are we today? what have we learned since this report came out in 2004. and what do we need to understand today about what happened on 9/11? >> well, charlie, crisis, a tremendous shock always brings out both the best and the worst in aociety. and in som ways the biggest thing we've learned over the last ten years is a lot more about ourselves, about some of the things that are best and worst about ourselves. if you like let's say the best might be abbottabad and the worst might be abu ghraib, so before getting into a lot of superficial stuff, the deepest level i think that's some of what we've learned the most. one level past that, i think we've made the country safer

but not safe, but safer. in a way we confronted a menace that we've taken seriously but not seriously enough it hit us and shocked us as a country. it caused us to think that there are things happening around the world, global phenomenon that don't fit in the way we used to think about international affairs that can devastate us. think about this. you have a group of people, smaller than a platoon, spending a very modest sum of money. so you have a just a handful of people spending a tiny amount of money causing this immee damage to the country. from a coming from a far away place that barely even has electricity and running water. a place that most americans had barely thought about or even heard of. and that they could do this to us. see, in a way pearl harbor

which, you know, is a major industrial power t amasses a huge men and met. it deploys it and then it hits us with a-- that's in a way easier to understand than a phenomenon like this. and so the country was shocked. it responded. and now we're really in a phase of where we need to normalize that response and management it for the long haul in a situation where the threat now is not as large as it was. it is just one more problem among many problems that confront. >> what should we call the struggle? >> i think as the commission said, war on terror isn't false. i mean it actually literally is a war t is an armed conflict bei conducted internationally in several countries, actually. it's not that it's not a war. the term war is inadequate. it's more than a war. because a war implies that it's basically a military

struggle. but it's actually basically a struggle aboutideas. it's actually overwhelmingly a struggle for the future of the muslim world. a lot of people are writing it is the struggle between civilizations, the west versus islam, no it is a struggle within the civilization, it is a struggle within the muslim world about what they are going to become. >> what is it that you do not know about what happened on 9/11 that you very much want to know? whats thereat unanswered question forhe executive director of the 9/11 commission? >> i think the basic factual narrative of what happened in the report, right now we don't need to amend it. but i think there are two things that could be helpful. one is when the conspirators that we have in our custody are brought to trial, which i hope will come soon. trials inevitably bring out some new information. and i suspect that the prosecution team that's preparing it this case actually has unearthed some

additional information since 2004. but i don't think it will change the narrative in dram believe ways but will provide us with some new information. but there is one, to give you an example of one big unanswered question, did the hijackers have a support network inside e united states. >> rose: give me both sides of it? >> we. >> rose: what dow suspect t can't confirm? what is the evidence that they did or did not? >> the commission actually suspected that they did have a support network inside the united states. but we could not prove it. there was a lot of publicity about allegations about this in '02 and '03, mostly the interest was in possible connections to saudies who might be connected to the saudi government and the news and frel that is connections to saudis, bush, halliburton, it was a very sexy mea angle. most of those leads really didn't pan out there were some saud who, for instance, workinin the

ministry of religious affairs who back in the 09see, when the saudis were sponsoring lots of fundamentalist islamic grou might be involved or have connections to islamic terrorist groups. but the saudi government, there is no evidence that linked the saudi government or government policy to anything-- supporting al qaeda or the royal family. and in a way it makes no sense because oom qaeda hated the saudi government. wanted to overthrow the royal family. >> rose: especially osama bin laden. >> absolutely. and actually, lots of saudies have now died fighting al qaeda and al qaeda has killed a lot of saudis. but the main threads, charlie, though, havingto do with a support network inside the united states actually have to do with yemenies. and indied, we name names. and one of the names we name in the report back in '04 is now a much more well-known name which is anwar al-awlaki who was the i ma'amand spiritual to two

hijackers in a suburb of san diego. they drive across the country to falls church, virginia, and low and behold they show up at a moss income false church in virginia where the same al-awlaki is the i ma'am. and one of the worshippers is more or less ascend to be their driver, and take them to connecticut, new jersey. >> rose: what do you think he knew about it. >> we don't know. >> rose: did anybody ever ask him. >> yes, the fbi interviewed al lacki and couldn't pin anything on him at the time. >> rose: he denied everything. >> he denied everything. he was allowed to leave the country. he returned to the country. >> rose: he's an american citizen. >> a dual citizen, yemeni and u.s. and then there is a peculiar set of circumstances because by this time the government was after him for visa fraud. the fbi arranged that he not be held or arrested for that. he was allowed to leave the country again. a fox reporter named

catherine-- looked at this. therwas another yemeni naked mukda abdullah who was clearly involved in helping the hijackers, also was in our custody. denied having any knowlge about this but as we recount in our report there is suspicious stuff about this. and when we tried to question him, he was deported by the u.s. government for reasons that puzzled us at the time. we can't, i'm simply saying in our commission report we couldn't prove there was a support network. what we could prove was that there were some odd and puzzling circumstances, especially surrounding group of people mainly yemenies. and we laid out in the report, here's what we know, here is what he don't know. and this needs more work. and those puzzles that we identified in '04 to us remain today. >> rose: did you and the commission have access to every piece of information you needed ant wanded? >> we had access to every

piece of documentary information that we knew or wanted. that is everything the u.s. government held. we had access to all the americans we knew or wanted to talk to. the only frustration we encountered is we actually wanted to talk to the 9/11 related people who the cia was holding in their -- >> and we were not allowed to directly question them. >> rose: why not? >> because they didn't-- . >> rose: didn't want them to know where they were. >> they didn't want to us know where they were and they didn't want us to know how they were being treated. >> rose: did you have access to whatever dialogue had been between those people who were questioning them. >> yes. >> rose: so you had information. >> we pushed this very hard. >> rose: then tell me. there is -- >> and actually there is, i wrote up a report on this '07 when there was a special prosecutor investigating an angle of this issue, as to whher or not there had been an obstruction of justice, th accounts of all of o efforts to question these people.

and we were about to subpoena and it would have been a huge fight. and finally the leaders of the commission, the chairman and vice chairman made deal with the administration where inn we would not is-- wherein we would not subpoena and force the issue but in return they would make available to us all the intelligence supports that they were making available to anyone inside their own government from the interrogations and that we could submit questions for the interrogaters and they would ask those questions. and then we could pool that information together with the other evidence we were getting from the fbi and others. so that we could make our own judgements as to what of this material we should not believe. and we recount this in the report there were som thins that come out of the interrogations tt we say in the report we don't believe are true. >> so people were saying things that they knew were not true jus to either confuse or lighten the torture. >> perhaps. >> perhaps torture. >> is it your opinion that

water boarding produced answers that were important in understanding and preventing and finding terrorists? >> i later served in the government after i served on the commission. and -- >> as an advisor to condoleezza rice. >> ias the counselor to the state department which is a kind of deputy. and in that capacity along with secretary rice i fought pretty hard, actually, against the prevailing detension and detention and interrogation practices. and after about two years, aided by john mccain inhe congress and the united states supreme court, we ended up kind of breaking this policy and getting a reversal and people came out of the black box. >> rose: why was that an important issue for you? was it in the belief set that you had that made you say this is what i am going to argue for? >> actually in the commission report n a recommendation that i drafted, we had called for all detainees to be treated

in accordance with what is called common article 3 of the geneva convention which is the common article that prohibits cruel and inhumane treatment. and we thought that should be applied. why? i thought frankly it's not because i like the terrorists. it's because what we do to these people says a lot about who we are. and that we needed to cooperate in this war with a lot of allies. and thathe with ought to share common standards with our allays aut how to treat the people we captured. i also did not think that the united states government should go down the road of physically torementing captives, regardless of whatever legal te of art you want to ply to this. it is physical torement, physical and mental torement. i didn't think we wanted to go down that road. we hadn't gone down that road, even against-- even under much more difficult circumstances in the second world war, in the vietnam war, in trial and error,

looking at the british experience, or the israeli experiences. i thought there were a lot of lessons learned from that. and basically my attitude was okay, if you physically torement people can you sometimes get useful intelligence, yes, perhaps. can you sometimes break people faster? yes, perhaps. but the benefits, i think, are relatively modest and the trade-offs are huge. there are costs into who you are as a society and to what your government has to do and what it has to become in order to carry out those practices and hide what it's doing from public scrutiny. there are also costs in getting bad information or unreliable information. there are costs in losing opportunities toometimes turn people. and i think even in the cases where we got some beneficial information, i don't think much of it w time sensitive. and i don't think there is a persuasive case that has been made that that sam information couldn't have been gotten through other means. by the time i was working in

the state department in '05 this issue of how we treated enemy captains was hurting us more than any other foreign policy issue in the world. >> rose: it was a rallying for people to join in whatever jihad that they had? >> it was hurting us with our allies in europe. the issue of quote guantanamo and all that cluster of things it represented was tarnishing our credibility-- credibility, especially in standing for idealsmore than any other single issue it was hurting us more than the war in iraq was by 2005. >> in europe and even in other and well beyond. you see, because the great advantage we had against these people after 9/11 was that we were a civilized society. and they were displaying the essence of barberism and nihilism. so the moment you start descending down into that valley, where they are,

you're forfeitin the biggest advantage you had in the global struggle. >> rose: what did you find out about why most people join those kinds of organizations? >> i think the phenomenons very lar to the phenomenon of the anarchists of the 800s and early 1900s. society is under great stss, undergoing wrenching change. often societies with traditions of repression so there aren't a lot of healthy outlets it deal with these wrenching changes. you get people who were profoundly alienated and who look for outlets for their anger, their dreams. and then they look for some kind of common identify. you see this, most of the people who a involved in this, inside these oats are people who are alienated or dispossessed inside their societies. not necessarily poor people, or they often come from

communities that don't really fit in in the places they're living. and then they band together and form this intense common identity around this, even being more zellous than t muslims back home. >> what is the difference in the al qaeda that attacked the united states on 9/11 and the al qaeda today? >> the al qaeda that attacked us on 9/11, first and foremost had a state sanctuary in afghanistan. so theore al qaeda in afghanistan numbered in the thousands. it had training camps, it had a personnel system like full human hr system. it was fairly sophisticated entity t could brin recruits. take the 9/11 pilots. key caudry because they were more ecated. they could learn to fly planes. they come from germany, they didn't come to afghanistan to attack the united states. they originally wanted to go to chechnya, volunteer to fight russians.

and then they were channeled in the al qaeda system. well now wouldn' you-- we think you should do this instead. we think you should consider this kind of mission. and they wer cultivated, indoctrine ated, you have all of that system. now plus, of course, a lot of global offshoots in yemen and in other communities around the world. now contrast that today. al qaeda central is substantially diminished. the state haven is lost. they're pushed into their basically hunted and on the run and mainly in pakistan, a little bit in yemen too, in the arabian peninsula. al qaeda central now can't-- has fewer people and is less well organized than the crew would you find on the set of any average hollywood movie. >> just to kind of get this in perspective. that doesn't mean they're not dangerous. they are. they tried to blow up i

truck bomb in times square recently. they had someone who had explosives in his shoes, in december of 2001 on an airplane overwhelmed by passengers, in 2009 they put instead of putting explosives in the shoes they were able to get someone to put explosives in his underwear and who was also overwhelmed by passengers when he tried to detonate it but it is useful to get this in perspective. because the more we magnify the significance of these people, the more hysterical we are about what they can do, we are actually feeding their agenda. this is not an impressive group of people. what makes them impressive, actually, is the terror that we give them because of our society. they have a utopian shall ideology-- . >> rose: if we didn't pay attention to them, what. >> we need to pay attention to them because they're dangerous. but we need to pay attention to a lot of things that are dangerous. by the way, including right

wing terrorism. and the thousands of people being murdered by transnational criminal gangs in mexico right across our border, who have killed far more people than al qaeda has killed in the last year or two. so it's useful to get a lot of things inroportion. >> rose: what is the one lesson, what is the most important lesson we've learned? and secondly, is it likely that if will happen again? >> nond what we've learned, beyond our most scrupulous and most rigorous homeland secuty. >> let me turn that around and answer the second part first, charlie is it like leigh that we will be tacked again, yes. is it likely -- >> because attempts have already been made. >> yes, and we're vulnerable to lots of things. a mum buy-- petroleum bye

style a tax someone takes an automatic weapon to a train station, can kill a bunch of people. >> rose: everybody is surprised that it hasn't happened that way in new york city. we've got a very effective new york police department, especially on this subject. but then-- but they can't be everywhere. >> see, but your comment already picked something up. given the pact that-- fact that they havead motive and have had the motive t is remarkable that there hasn't been more of this. and that shows that actually our response has made a difference. >> rose: sure. >> it has. but in other words, i wanted to start with the second thing. that is something probably will happen. there is going to be an attack. norway was just hit by a different kind of attack. let me come back to the first question you asked. what have we learned? we've learned that we need to adjust to this possibility. and become a society that can live with that danger. i started out by saying a crisis like this brings out our best and our worst. we've discovered this about ourselves. what we need to learn from

this is what do we like about what we've done in the last ten years. and what we have learned. what do we like about not so much how do you prevent these things whack do we like about the way we've adjustedo shocks. that because really the measure of a government ultimately is not whether it preventsn attack like this, these things will happen. it's how you handle it after it happens. whether you learn from it, whether you absorb the shock, whether you are resilient. and the biggest thing we've learned in the last ten years is to learn more about how to be a resilient society, that mitigates these problems, manages them and learns to live with them so that a tiny group of zealots don't make us dance to their tune. >> well said. i thank you. this is the book, the 9/11 commission report, attack from planning to aftermath it was a best-seller as we all know. there's a new afterward by

philip zelikow and he was the executive director of the commission there are many, many questions to ask. many of these questions will be asked as we in september take a look at the0th anniversary and remark about that terrible day. thank you. >> rose: on tuesday september 11th -- 001, bruns jules an gedeon naudet were in downtown manhattan filming a documentary on new york city firefighters. blocks away from the world trade center they witnessed the devastating attacks. they never stopped filming from the time the first plane hit to the we ares. their 180 hours of footage were made into a documentary that aired in 2002. it has been since updated to mark the 10th anniversary of september 11th it is called 9/11, ten years later. it is perhaps the most extensive verb all record that exists of that day. joining me now are the filmmaker jules and gedeon naudet and former firefighter and codirector of the film james hanlon. i'm very pleased to have them back at this table. >> thank you for having us. >> rose: so you made a film, the film that you originally

made which you talked about eloquently and brilliantly here at that time and then there was a felt tham you did one year later as i remember, then five years later. and now ten years later. tell me what we will see in this documentary and what you felt like it was important to say, to record, and to remind. >> you know, september 11th has always been with us, most of the time actually. for the past ten years living with september 11. and continuing to see these firefighters and being in touch with them. we started seeing a t of problems a few years ago. firefighters getting sick, firefighters dying. and this year two of them died from the fire. and we knew they were sick already. earlier during the year and that's prompted us to really wanting to update what we had done. to tell their story.

because ten years ago we told the story of their heroism, the most aming things that we saw that day which was represented by first responders all over new york. but this time we thought that these people that normally, you know, are here to help us need help themselves to tell their story. and when randy and john died, it really crystallized that we needed to go back, interview all of them and tell that story which is still continuing. 9/11 is not finished for a lot of them. it's still killing. we have lost more than 200 firefighters, a thousand are sick. it's important to update and inform the people on what is going on. >> rose: what is it that is causing the deaths? >> the problem is that it's this dust, toxic dust that everybody breathes on that morning. and for the days and we cans that followed. it's those two buildings that got completely crushed to powder with all the that

you can imagine, the asbestos, the glass, all to microscopic size that we all breathed. and doctors ten years ago mr. telling us and we were not really believing them, but they were telling us watch out. watch out after five years, after seve years, after ten years. that's wn you'll see people dying of cancers and blood disease. anwe cannot brush it off. we didn't really wanto thinabout testimony didn't want to think about it. and and jules said it's been a year a a half now, almost two years that we see more and more guys in the fire department getting sick and dying and that's terrifying. >> rose: what has been the response of the fire department, what has been the response of state and local government to this? >> well, initially, as gedeon was saying these two buildings fall down. s there's dust everywhere.

toxic brew of this soup and guys nning, you know. and they're looking for bodies, masks aren't really readily available at first. if we go back to tham. and then the epa says the air islear. the mayor at the time said the air is clear. and guys start to get masks a few weeks later, they're breathing this all in. we go now eight years later, we still don't have a bill for thfirst responder and jims who died at the age of 34, a police officer, very soon after, they write a health and compensation act for him. and it's reall stalled i the congress for a long time. and it finally gets passed and they leave out cancer. >> rose: why? >> well, you know, there's a lot of different theories why they would leave it out. it's going to cost more money, you know, to take care of all these people. but if you think of 40,000 florescent light bulbs, the mercury in that,0,000

computers, asbestos, jet fuel burning for months and are you breathing this in, what do they think was going to happen? and then the study came out, the federal study came out that said it's not conclusive. but then recently the lancet medical journal gets leaked and they say this is federal funded study and it contradicts everything and says 19% higher raten cancer. so now as of yesterday, you see officials starting to say wait a minute, we have to include cancer. >> rose: tell me what the impact of being there that day was for you. >> well, i think just right at the beginning ihink being confronted by my own rtality which could have been you know, in a car accident. but i think it does puts things into perspective. you know, that's where you start realizing, wow, why am i herewhat is important, is it-- money, art, no, at the end of the day, the people you love, the life

you've lived and it might sound cliche but it's true that, you know, there is one thing i try to hold on from that day. is never to take life for granted. >> rose: do you think about that that day every day. >> i try not to. i only think about that day when i get fearful, when i doubt myself, whenever i have a moment of blues, whenever i feel disconnected with myself. then i remember what those guys did on that day. and somehow, really, well, what i filmed that day, from all e firefighters, from all the first responders, became a true lesson of life. ando i a try t think of that. and to get the courage out of that day, back inside me. and help me whenever i need it. >> rose: where were you? >> i was-- i had left the fire house and then come backown there.

i didn't even know that they were alive. i thought they were all dead. i assumed everybody in my fire house was dead. and i remember, for me that day represents two things. because i was a firefighter and we were making a film about it and so in the years after, watching so much footage on all of it, and looking at all these guys that passed away and died, you get like a survivors' guilt. and i don't go a week without talking to somebody from the fe house that day or somebody who was involved, it's always there. >> rose: because you were there firs >> yeah. >> rose: you went looking for him. >> yes, absolutely. >> rose: are you there moments when you think about it, that if not there, if i didn't-- if this hadn't happened i would be dead today. >> i think i would not have-- if chief pfeiffer had not taken care of me that day, because he did. i ink i became his-- that day. he was since the beginning every time i would lo around i would see him and he would look at me, making sure i was with himment and i know for a fact, you know,

just following him, even when the north tower come down, the last one, we're out, we're just underneath it i look up hearing the sound of death coming towards me i see the tower falling on me, i run 20 feet, die lie down in the middle of the street. i say what am i doing. he jumped on top of me. he saw me ther just in a t-shirt and he said i need to protect him. so he's my hero. he's the one who saved me. i am here because of him. and-- . >> rose: the other thing is you see death all around you. most of us not seeing death, perhaps our parent, andou see it happen and you see bodies that you pull out, the body bags. >> there were bodies today, i mean people don't foe about and there was a lot of-- to get it off right away. >> rose: here is footage from inside the north tower lobby after it was attacked. it says everything. here it is.

>> on that day, guys from my fire house, my best friends were some of the first firefighters in to we are one after the plane hit. >> what they did that day, whatever there did was remarkable. >> a almost as remarkable, it was captured on videotape, inside the tower. beginning to end. >> i can see 2r5 guys on that tape, that that was their last moment. and then they went up and they die right there. >> rose: some you knew. >> i probably knew 100 guy

>> 343 that died that day. what's the number today. >> here are interviews with the fair fighters from ladder one about their rescue forts. >> upstairs in tower one, the guys from my re house were now ten floors up and climbing. >> if we did talk, it was to the people coming wn, trying to comfort them, tell them it's all right. get out. but stay calm. i found a woman in the staircase, arms were all burnt. she was just sitting there, basically in shock. so i picked her up under her arms and i put her in with a group of guys and i said guys, take her down. >> i knew we had to get up to help people. we had to get up there. >> the people pretty much why are you going up there. get out. >> they are they coming down. >> their concern was to get

everybody out this was the key, as much people out as possible. >> are you surprised at all knowing these guys about what happened in terms of their response, how their sense of to be there, their sense to go up and save people. >> not for second. if are you a new york city firefighter, your job is to save people. your job is to go into the building and do it well. >> rose: but if you d asked them if there is at danger, what are you going to do, they would have said automatically i'm going in. >> they would have still ran in. people would have still showed up and said let's get people out. and let's not forget, and a lot of people don'tmention this, 20,000 people were saved that day. 20,000. there were people in tha building, both buildings and these guys ran up and said get out, get out. and they gotut. aney kept going up. >> so what is the legacy of this. >> it has to be of the film, of the day is the greatness

of humanity. it has to be. you can't put a negative spin on it. you have to turn around and say mankind rose up at the darkest moment to help somebody else in need. no matter what the circumstances were. >> what would you add to that? >> i feel privileged and honored to be inspired every day by what i have seen ton that day. it was first responders. answering the call, despite all the danger, and that is what basically gives me such an energy every single day. and such pride to have witnessed that, firsthand. >> . >> same thing. i think it's the date it is all about hope. it's all about the darkest hour. that's where, you know, humanity shines the brightest. and we saw that firsthand.

>> you are now an actor. you left the fire department. >> in 2007. i live in santa monica, california, far away from here now. >> rose: on purpose or that's whe theork is. >> left on purpose. didn't want to be re any more. >> rose: gedeon? >> well-- . >> rose: youive here >> still in new york. and am a new yorker deep down to the core, to the bone. never want to be anywhere else. if another 9/11 happens, i want to be surrounded by new yorkers. >> rose: the title of this film is 9/11 ten years later. the documentary that everybody understood and was thankful that there had been a witness to such a tragedy at the same time such heroism and courage. this is an update of that it will appear on cbs television on september 11th at 8:00 p.m..

>> funding for charlie rose has been provided by the coca-cola company, supporting this program since 2002. >> and american express.

additiona funding provided by these funders