Return to Transcripts main page
ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES
Latest on EgyptAir Crash; Officials Interview Ground Staff With Access To Plane; Smoke Alerts On Plane Moments Before Crash; Charles De Gaulle Airport Adding Extra Security; Trump: Clinton Wants To Abolish 2nd Amendment; Clinton Has Never Argued To Abolish 2nd Amendment; Clinton And Trump On Terrorism, Fighting ISIS. Aired 8-9p ET
Aired May 20, 2016 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[20:00:00] JIM BERMAN, CNN: Good Evening John Berman here in for Anderson. We begin with breaking news in the crash of Egypt Air Flight 604, smoke warnings and computerized cries of a sick and dying airliner. Messages from the planes automated data link with home base it's called ACARS and ordinarily the messages are routine.
In this case, they appear troubling, even perhaps dire. Cryptic text but each line spells trouble. A failure in one of the flight decks electrical heaters, a window sensor failure, smoke in the lavatory, smoke in the area housing the avionics which help pilots navigate. And most ominously trouble in the flight control computers that help keep airbuses flying.
We're going at length about what could cause all this because it runs the gambit from equipment failure to sabotage to some kind of bomb or incendiary device. But first how the day unfolded starting in the search area.
REPORTER: Day two of an intense search and recovery operation over the Mediterranean Sea. A European Space Agency satellite may have picked up the biggest clue on Flight 804's location so far. A mile long oil slick in the water around the area where the plane dropped off the radar. It's too early to tell if this is from the missing plane. Search crews are investigating.
Also possible debris has been picked up by the Egyptian military. Personal belongings and aircraft parts including seats were recovered from the water along with human remains, that's according to Egyptian authorities. Until the plane is found and the black box is recovered, why this plane crashed will remain largely unknown.
GUEST: We cannot make any speculation for the time being, because there is no evidence of any, any proof whether this is one thing or the other.
REPORTER: Still U.S. officials believe terrorism is the likely cause, though no group has claimed responsibility for bringing down the plane. Investigators are looking into what if any role the crew may have had in the planes disappearance. There were 10 crew members on board. The captain, Mohammad Shagiur (ph) had a good reputation as a pilot with more than 6,000 flying hours. His co-pilot, Mohammad Asam (ph) had more than 2,700 hours of flight time. His uncle described him as a kind person with a sense of humor.
GUEST: I would say he was the only that was really growing smiles and he said so. What happened - - is really very much unfortunate.
REPORTER: At this mosque in Cairo, the prayer service for the dead. This grieving man said he lost four relatives on board the flight. Sixty-six people total were on the plane. The passengers were from a dozen countries around the world, through most were Egyptian and French. Family members met today with Egypt Air officials who say they are still in the process of notifying next of kin.
BERMAN: More now on those final two or three minutes worth of messages from the doomed airbus and what they could be saying. We're going to explore some leading theories with our panel of experts in just a moment.
Joining us now, though CNN's Evan Perez, has been hearing from his sources about exactly that. Evan, what are they telling you?
PEREZ: Well John there's not much they can tell just from these messages. Look it does indicate there was some kind of catastrophic failure but the fact that this plane is at the bottom of the sea in the Mediterranean, we already knew that. So what they're doing is looking at these messages to see if perhaps they might indicate a bomb. And really we can't tell that from this, we can't tell whether or not this was sabotage. You can't tell whether or not there was a fire that was caused by something going wrong with the mechanical parts of the aircraft. They really just can't tell from that.
BERMAN: What about the possibility of ruling anything out at this point? Can they do even that?
PEREZ: No, you know, one of the things that happens is that this was a fire that started perhaps from some mechanical failure. The belief is that the pilots would have had time to radio in something was wrong on the aircraft. We've seen that in cases where planes caught on fire because of something going wrong inside. The fires would tend to burn a little more slowly. So at least, one of those things it seems that's likely.
But it does not mean that something mechanical didn't cause a sudden catastrophic failure so they still are not ruling that part out John.
BERMAN: Al right. Still so many questions. Evan Perez thanks so much.
So we have these messages from the airbus ACAR Systems and almost real time account of the string of failures on board. They do not by any means, as Evan was saying, tell the entire story and they certainly support a wide range of possibilities.
So let's bring in the panel. CNN Aviation Analyst and private pilot Miles O'Brien, Mary Schiavo, former Inspector General for the Department of Transportation, she's currently an attorney representing victims of transportation accidents. CNN Safety analyst and former FAA accident investigator David Soucie and CNN Aviation Correspondent Richard Quest.
Richard, you're far away so I'm going to start with you. What do the ACAR's messages and so far as we've seen them, what do they tell you?
QUEST: They tell us a rough location of where the locus for whatever was happening. They give us an indication of the seriousness in the sense that clearly the avionics bay the ENE bay and the brain of the aircraft was involved. They put on the table the possibility of smoke and that means fire. And whether it's an electronics or mechanical or a bomb we now know there was an element of smoke and fire involved.
And if you then extrapolate and superimpose that on the timeline you start to see the urgency, throw in the factor that you have no warning from the crew and you can now start to say either they were incapacitated because the radios weren't working, or they were overwhelmed. So it tells us nothing about the cause, but these are crucial pieces of the jigsaw that are helping to form the total picture, John, without actually having the black boxes.
They are crucial because we are narrowing down those areas of significance.
BERMAN: It raises a provocative range of possibilities to be sure, Miles. What about the ACAR's data that we've seen? Again those six data points, when you match it up on how we believe the plane was moving. We heard about that 90 degree turn to the left, the 360 degree turn to the right any match up there?
O'BRIEN: Yes. As a matter of fact, what we're seeing with the ACAR's data is a plane with a lot of problems, very quickly. Perhaps a rapid decompression, perhaps a fire, perhaps both, what's the crew supposed to do in that situation? You want to get down from 37,000 feet as quickly as possible. Down to about 10,000 feet where people can breathe air without having it pressurized.
Which is what happened. So what you do, you turn off of the airway, 90 degrees, which they did, left turn 90 degrees and down they went. That is standard operating procedure, that is a crew battling and working a problem. And I think the one thing that this does is removes any cant of implication of the crew at this point.
Takes it very low down the list, the crew was somehow a rogue pilot here.
BERMAN: Because they're doing what they should be doing?
O'BRIEN: What it appears is, they had a huge problem and they were working the problem.
BERMAN: Al right. David Soucie, any possibility, you know, we don't know if there was a fire, what caused the fire. What are the range of possibilities that was purely mechanical? No nefarious activity?
SOUCIE: Well there's some things that makes me suspicious that it might be that and the reason is there's a lot of history with these particular windows with there heat. Now the heat going to these windows, this is a very, very think window, it has a layer of gold inside of it. That's the conductor if you will, that creates the heat that keeps these windows from fogging up and icing up at the -40 degrees.
So some of these windows, in the history, have had some problem with delamination. Which creates this compacitents charge, if you will, that can build up over time and cause cracks or cause problems in the windows. So there is a history of this, not a significant history, it's a safe situation, it's just sometimes they fail. So that makes me suspect, makes it suspect that it was just a mechanical failure and the fact that it started with that sliding window.
That was one of the first reports that came out. And then it seems to have propagated from that, it got worse and worse as time went on and we'll go through that a little bit. But I think that, that indicates to me. But it doesn't rule out that the nefarious activity started there as well.
BERMAN: That's what I'm going to ask Mary right now. Let's look at the flip side of that. What in this evidence, you know, data that we have right now, the data dump. What indicates that it might be some type of explosion.
SCHIAVO: What I think what indicates that it could be that not necessarily is that but it could be that, is the speed at which it occurred and that involved more than one system. David's right, there have been so many - - every plane has a number of errant directives and things that could go wrong and overheat and problems. But here we have a number of systems, a number of things going wrong in a very short period of time.
At most, three to four minutes before the plane drops from radar. And so much that the pilots could not respond, or were not able to get a call out. And I think it looks like in terms of prior accidents or prior crashes or prior bombings, it looks like a case of not Pan Am 103 or TWA 800 which was a fuel tank explosion not a bombing.
But more likely Pan Am 830 and TWA 40 in which it was an incomplete bombing. It was an attempted bombing but it didn't blast the plane out of the sky. It caused damage and harmed the plane. And that would be the scenario for nefarious activity.
BERMAN: Enough to cause damage, start a fire, but not instant catastrophe as it were. But Mary, had it been an innocent fire, it might have given enough time for the pilots to call in and say what was going on?
SCHIAVO: Well it has in other, and again, I always go back to other crashes and other activities or incidents or plane disasters that I've worked. And in those cases that were on Swiss Air 111, which was a fire in the entertainment system and I worked on Value Jet, 20 years ago almost to the day practically, this month. And in those cases they were able to get out mayday calls, tell the air traffic control that they were on fire, in case of Value Jet completely on fire and what happened there then the fire burned through their control systems. But that then caused a change in the laws and in the aircraft manufacturing now we have smoke and fire suppression systems.
BERMAN: Al right. Guys, stand by. A lot more to talk about. When we come back we're going to look inside the airbus, which under normal circumstances is a kind of an engineering and electronic marvel. Tonight though, up close, all the parts and pieces we've been talking about so you can see how this deadly chain of events might have played out.
Also tonight authorities still focusing on the terror angle, a security upgrade is in the works at Charles De Gaulle Airport, one of the biggest and busiest airports on earth. Especially for Americans making connections throughout Europe, all that and more as 360 continues.
BERMAN: The breaking news, electronic smoke alerts broadcasted from EgyptAir 804 along with reports that other systems on board were failing. It helps to see what we've been talking about which is why I am here at our magic wall with David Soucie and Miles O'Brien. Miles, I want to start with you. We're talking about the ACAR System on the Airbus A320, where is it located here?
O'BRIEN: The Aircraft Communications, Addressing and Reporting System, ACARS. All you really need to know about that, it's live streaming the important information about systems on the aircraft to the maintenance people. For the pilots perspective it's here. These are the flight management input systems, and the box itself is beneath here in the avionics bay.
This screen right here gives them the data from the ACARS if they want to see it but typically they don't bother with it because it's all for maintenance. So that's not in their bailiwick. This is to make sure when the plane lands, they have all the parts in place, they're ready to go and turn that plane around.
BERMAN: It's there but they hardly ever look at it under normal circumstances. David Soucie, we've got these five or six data points with ACARS right now. Explain to me where each point is on this aircraft.
SOUCIE: OK. The first warning that we received in this report was from this back window, this back window started to get a report saying it's bad. And then following that, there was another report saying it wasn't just the anti-ice but it was also the window had failed. Which would implied that it had some kind of breach. The next report we got was down in the ENE compartment. The other report we got was back here, right behind there, where the lavatory system said that there was smoke in the lavatory.
And then the final one we got was smoke in the ENE, that wasn't the final, the very final one was that this window had failed as well. So there's a continuous movement of this and this is all within about a minute and a half.
BERMAN: So basically, under here the avionics bay, we understand the electronics under the cockpit, that's a big area underneath here where they're all sitting. And the lavatory, again right here. But it's all in the same basic area yes?
SUSSEY: Exactly. Exactly.
BERMAN: And Miles, we keep on saying that perhaps the most dire warning and I'll clean this up so you can add to this right here. The most dire warning was sort of the last two. Yes, we had smoke in these places but there's some kind of really major failure going on here as well.
O'BRIEN: Well, it's important to know about the airbus system. There are literally hundreds of computers under here making this fly. The human being is just part of the system. The computers are doing the flying. So what happened was, the flight control units and there's several of them, began to fail. They are located in the avionics bay. And then we don't know why or how, whether it was on the same circuit or bus, one of the spoiler systems and that's - - when you land an aircraft you notice the boards come up to slow the aircraft down. That indicated that there was a failure there.
What - - you know, how do you connect the dots between all these things, we don't know except to say, things were happening very quickly, and if you had some sort of explosion or fire in that avionics bay a lot of systems in desperate places could be affected simultaneously.
BERMAN: Can these communications ever just fail completely and send bad info?
O'BRIEN: Sure, absolutely. Absolutely. There's a lot of redundancy, there's a lot of stuff clustered in one spot as well.
BERMAN: Al right. I want to bring in the rest of our panel now. Richard Quest, Mary Schiavo -- Richard I want to start with you here. Again, we've been saying there's nothing conclusive that can be drawn from these ACARS messages. But I want you to match this initial suspicion, this initial theory that it could be terror related. Put the idea of terror on these data points. How do they match?
QUEST: Oh, of course they match. In the sense that you have some sort of incendiary device, not necessarily a bomb or a full scale bomb because that could take the plane out of the sky immediately. Look, while we've been talking, sort of my blackberry here, I'm still old enough to be using one of these contraptions. My blackberry sort of has been filling up with A320 pilots and captains emailing me about what they think all these points mean.
Taking on board what Miles has been saying and listening carefully to that. What they're all saying is basically the same thing. And, you know, individually, each one of these pieces is not necessarily significant. The flight computer unit too is taken over by FCU1 with limited degradation. The SCC3 losing that isn't catastrophic but John, I got to the point, but look at where all this is, it's in the brains of the aircraft. It's in the ENE bay, the avionics bay and that's what significant
here. You literally have, you literally have a crisis at the brain of the aircraft. And that is why what is happening here, whether it's been terror related or it's related to mechanical or fire is so significant. Could it be terror? Absolutely. And don't forget how do you get in the ENE bay on the 320, you do it externally.
There's a hatch from outside the aircraft from underneath the aircraft that gives you access to the ENE bay.
BERMAN: That sets me up perfectly for my next question, Mary Schiavo, right now. If it was some sort of explosion, if there was some sort of device placed on board. How would it get there? When would it get there? Because as Richard was saying, I can point to it right here. The only way to get to this area right here, we're looking at right now, as Richard explains is from the outside before the flight takes off correct?
SCHIAVO: Correct. And but, you can get to it at any one of the stops that the plane had made that day if the searches and the security sweeps were not thorough and complete and if they did not do a security sweep in the electronics bay which is not always part of the sweep.
So it -- not necessarily Paris, it could have been put on there at various times, but it would have had to have a careful triggering device, it would have been a timer in conjunction if it was not put on in Paris in conjunction with a more sophisticated altimeter.
BERMAN: Miles, I don't know if you know the answer to this but are these areas swept? Do they sweep inside the electronics bay when the planes on the ground?
O'BRIEN: I don't know for a fact, but certainly that would - - if you're sweeping a plane that would be one of the things you would look at.
BERMAN: And David Sussey again, we're talking about the possibility of putting something here. But as we said, the lavatory was up here. Everything is toward the front here. If somehow you were able to get a soda can, with an explosive device which is what we saw in the Metro Glass over Siani. If you were able to set something a blaze up there, could something small like that cause all these problems?
SOUCIE: It could. What I'm worried about and what doesn't make sense about this so far in that scenario of terror, that it started with this window. It started with the window. It didn't start down here with the smoke alarm, it was a minute later, after the window had given the signal that those smoke alarms down below, and those in the lavatory started.
BERMAN: Again this only raises more questions, we have no answers but we do have new data. New data that will be analyzed, I think, so much over the next few days.
Panel, thanks so much for being with us. A lot more to talk about just ahead. More breaking news, new steps that Charles De Gaulle Airport is taking right now to tighten security and new details about how long Egypt Air 804 was on the ground in Paris before take off. As we now know that could be a factor, who had access to the plane? That's a factor. How difficult it is to fully vet every person who getting close enough to the plane to potentially do harm? All that next.
BERMAN: Tonight's breaking news. Newly obtained flight data showing smoke alerts about Egypt Air Flight 804 and the minutes before it crashed into the Mediterranean. New information has added a new layer of mystery to this tragedy. And another new development, word that more intelligence officers will soon be deployed on the ground at Charles De Gaulle Airport, the point of take off for Flight 804 which was bound for Cairo.
CNN's Atika Shubert joins me now from the airport with all these new details.
You know, Atika, you know, this airport has one of the strictest security systems in place already and it had been heightened over the last year and now heightened again. Are you seeing any changes since yesterday?
SHUBERT: Exactly, what we often see here are these sort of units of armed soldiers that kind of do these patrols through the terminal. There are an increased number of spot checks on passengers here but on top of that, airport authorities say they will be adding 30 intelligence agents in just a few weeks. To sort of patrol the terminals as well, that's on top of the 5,700 security agents already here. So there is a significant step up in the security. Yes.
BERMAN: Al right. I want to be precise about this. After the November attacks, there were dozens of workers that had their red badges that provide access to restricted areas of the airport, they had those red badges taken away. But only 12 were fired, so the rest can still work at the airport Atika?
SHUBERT: Yes. I think what we need to be careful about here is why a lot of these people had their badges revoked. In order to get a red badge you need to be cleared by police. Now what airports authorities did after the Sharlie Hebdo attack, they went back is there anybody who might have sympathies for ISIS or for any of these radical Islamic groups.
That doesn't mean they are a qualified member of any terror organization, it means, you know, would they be vulnerable to influence. Anybody who was considered to be that, then had their badges revoked. But they might have been put in another position that did not allow them access to the more secure areas of the airport. And to be sure, this all had to undergo a court review. So they simply couldn't fire people. It actually had to be reviewed by an independent body.
Now I have to add, on top of that, they actually also rejected 600 people from getting these security badges because of other criminal records, petty crimes and so forth. It is a pretty stringent review process, but considered that's a service for a half million flights that come of here. There are some 80,000 employees that need access to those restricted areas. That's a lot of people to screen John.
BERMAN: A lot of numbers to discuss. Atika Shubert, thank you so much. Very, very interesting subject matter right now.
So we're going to talk about it more. David Soucie is back. Joining the conversation CNN's National Security Analyst and former U.S. Assistant Secretary for Homeland Security, Juliette Kayyem. Also Phil Mudd, CNN Counter terrorism Analyst and former Senior Official at the FBI and CIA. Phil, Atika was just listing off those numbers there which are interesting right? The big one is the 80,000 people work at Charles De Gaulle Airport that is a lot of people right there.
Then you drill down more and you know, 12 people were fired, they couldn't get their red badges back, you know, but they're other people that had their badges removed that are still working at the airport. From a security standpoint, is all this cause for concern?
MUDD: Look let's have a reality check here. This is not 80,000 people, this is Belgium this is the Nordic countries, this is Italy, this is Spain, so multiply 80,000 at Charles De Gaulle by the rest of Europe going into North America and North Africa. To believe you can undergo valid security checks at some level for that number of people is misleading.
When I joined the CIA, nine months, polygraph, talked to my family, talked to my neighbors, financial records, if you want to undergo a serious security check beyond doing what we could do very simply, look at criminal records. It's not possible for that volume of people. One final thought, once you hire somebody continuous monitoring. Are you going to come back next year? Two years later? Are you going to look at their face book postings? I don't think we should mislead ourselves to believe that you can get deep security checks on people at airports when you're talking about 80,000.
[20:30:06] BERMAN: So, Juliette I want you to join this conversation right now. Because when you hear what happened at Charles de Gaulle when you hear about those people who were fired, you hear about the 600 people who could not get clearance who applied for it, do you feel as if now, are you confident they're doing all they can?
JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Just to pick up on what Phil said, they are doing everything they can give to fundamental for, your problems, right. One is, you need functioning airports in major European cities as the same would be true in America.
And, you know, secondly as reported about the court order you can't just fire people based on some speculation that they could be radicalized, it's true in France and it's true here. And so they just have this challenge that, you know, how many people are you going to say have well they have a propensity towards, you know, radicalization that is than going to lead to terrorism.
I will say one thing though on the security thing, today is a better day than yesterday. They found the airplane, that is good for family members. And I think it's also true that there are a couple of theories we can now take off the check list, right we talk, you know, I'm not a terrorism yet I don't know, it's not pilot error, the pilots clearly wanted to save this airplane and it is clearly not weather.
So there are only a limited number of options now. I think that's a good day for the family members. We have to remember that. They need to know what happened.
BERMAN: A good day in the sense they want answers no matter how difficult those answers ...
BERMAN: ... those are when they do hear them. You know David Soucie, you know, where standing at the magic wall looking at the map of the plane right there, the ideas that all those things that went wrong on ACARS happened in the same area and perhaps directly responsible for taking this plane down. If someone knows this aircraft, if someone knows that that's a vulnerable area, you know, perhaps a fire could do would have may have done on this flight, you know, is there a way to design an explosive? Is there an explosive that you can imagine doing all of those things?
DAVID SOUCIE, CNN AVIATION SAFETY ANALYST: Sure, and as we many things that we've seen adapted to the security systems. You know, we've in the kind of security systems and the things we do to prevent them, it is a game of cat and mouse. You know, we've learn something new, we mitigate that problem, and then they find something else, we mitigate that problem.
Every single security advance that we've ever had has been driven by a security breaches some kind. So that is the nature of how this works. The challenge is how do you get proactive, how do we think smarter, how we go ahead of that, and try prevent things before they happen. And I don't want to diminish that, because of the fact that there are thousands of things that are mitigated every single day when people are going a new through, a new security people are doing that. So I don't want to say that this is we don't have security, we do. And they're doing a fine job. It's this anomalies that get through.
BERMAN: Phil, we're talking earlier today before the news of the ACARS data come out, as you put it the negatives were mounting, the things that were not happening were bigger than things that were happening in this investigation. No claim of responsibility. No matches on the watch list.
Then all of a sudden late this afternoon, we have word this ACAR data -- ACARS data, smoke, smoke, you know, in the lavatory, smoke in the avionics area, catastrophic failure of some of the systems right there. How does that change the stack of negatives?
MUDD: The stack is growing for me, in term of -- yesterday might have said 50/50, maybe it's a terrorist event, maybe it's something else. We're talking to friends through the database slowly over time, through tomorrow through Sunday, that stack is weighing against terrorism.
We talk about what we know. Let me talk about what we don't know. We don't know is that there's anybody on board that matched watch lists. What we don't know is whether anybody in ISIS is talking about this. They appear not to be talking about this, otherwise you would get a leak from Washington or somebody says there's ISIS chatter. No information suggesting there there's anybody in the ground crew yet.
So you look at this and you say in addition to the smoke, which tells me there wasn't a device that took the plane down immediately, typically what I would see from a terror group. You start to see over time, that's the additional factor here, this is looking more and more curious. If you want to judges a terror incident.
BERMAN: There will be a crucial weekend to be sure. And I think they're going to take a much closer look at these ACARS data as well over the next several days. Guys thanks so much for being with us.
Just ahead, speaking of smoke, Mary Schiavo mentioned of earlier smoke was the first clue that something was wrong on Swissair 111 nearly 18 years ago, we will explore how that strategy unfold and then what it may say about the mystery of EgyptAir 804.
Plus, Donald Trump got a big endorsement from the NRA and he delivered a speech packed with red meat what he said about his rival Hillary Clinton and how it stacks up against the facts, that's coming up.
[20:38:26] BERMAN: These are still very early days in the investigation of EgyptAir flight 804. As we've been reporting tonight, there is a new clue to factor in. Newly obtained flight data shows there were smoke alerts, there were smoke alerts that aboard the airliner in the minutes before it crashed. Then it was not clear exactly what that means, but Mary Schiavo tonight alluded on just how dangerous that can be even without all the other apparent problems that struck the airbus.
The nearly 18 years ago, smoke was the first sign of something was terribly wrong on another Swissair 111 which took off from New York with 229 people on board.
Here is Randi Kaye.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The pilots of Swissair flight 111 bound for Geneva from JFK noticed a strange smell in the cockpit less than an hour after takeoff. Then they see small amounts of smoke, concerned, they ask to land at the nearest airport. This is the air traffic control tape from that night, still haunting all these years later.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Swissair111, heavy declaring pan pan pan pan. We have smoke in the cockpit. Request deviate immediate return, to a convenient place. I guess Boston. BILL PICKRELL, FMR AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER: Swissair 111 roger. Turn right to proceed, you say to Boston you want to go? Would you prefer to go into Halifax?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Affirmative for Swissair 111 heavy. We prefer Halifax from our position.
KAYE: Bill Pickrell was the air traffic controller talking to the pilot.
PICKRELL: It was a fairly straightforward operation up the point that they advice that they needed to dump fuel.
[20:40:02] KAYE: The plane reaches the cost Nova Scotia.
PICKRELL: You've got 30 miles to fly to the threshold.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We need more than 30 miles.
KAYE: The pilots are worried about landing with so much fuel on board.
PICKRELL: Swissair 111, when you have time could I have the number of souls on board and your fuel onboard please for emergency services.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Roger, at the time, fuel onboard, 230 tons. We must dumb some fuel.
KAYE: At this point there's no sense of panic, the captain is going through his emergency check list. The co-pilot is flying the aircraft. Neither has any idea there is a fire just above the cockpit. Then this.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Swissair 111 heavy is declaring emergency. Roger we are between 12 and 5,000 feet, we are declaring emergency at time 0124.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 111 heavy, we starting to dump now, we have to land immediately.
PICKRELL: In the background I could hear the warning alarm for the auto pilot disconnecting and he told me verbally at the same time that he was flying the plane manually that auto pilot had disconnected.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And we are declaring emergency now Swissair 111.
KAYE: That is the last transmission from Swissair flight 111. The transponder also fails, but the plane is close enough to the airport that radar can still track it as it makes an unexpected turn to the west.
PICKRELL: Whether it was a manual input by pilots or what the reasoning was, they flew for probably two or three minutes west and then did a 180 degree turn and headed back. At that point we thought perhaps they had control of the airplane. But then soon after that they turned again and headed out toward the ocean and then the aircraft disappeared.
KAYE: The plane slams into the Atlantic Ocean 16 minutes after smoke was first reported. Hitting with such force, it explodes into two million pieces. Everyone is killed. Only one body is recovered intact.
The flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder found days later reveal the fire and caused the pilot's flight screens to go dark, making it nearly impossible to discern up from down.
Randi Kaye, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: And still jarring to hear those transmissions all these years later.
Coming up, Donald Trump comes out guns blazing against Hillary Clinton at an NRA meeting he says she wants to abolish the Second Amendment which not something he's actually ever said she would do. See what else Donald Trump had to say after getting the NRAs endorsement, that's next.
[20:46:34] BERMAN: Donald Trump got the stamp of approval from the National Rifle Association today. The group endorsed them, and he spoke at their annual meeting where he launched into an attack against Hillary Clinton complete with a new nickname for her, "heartless Hillary", and it claim that she wants to abolish the Second Amendment.
Now for the record, she has never said that. He also said she wants to release violent criminals from jail. She never said that either. Trump touted himself as the who will to use his word cherish the right to bear arms and said he is very strong on gun ownership, and he's working before he ran for president, Donald Trump supported a ban on assault weapons and was in favor of longer waiting periods for people who want to buy guns, but those NRA position or positions the NRA doesn't like seem forgiven and for gotten as he addressed thousands of member in Louisville today.
Sara Murray, reports.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SARA MURRAY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Today, Donald Trump is capping off a week of wooing conservatives in front of a friendly audience.
DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I will not let you down.
MURRAY: Picking up an endorsement at the National Rifle Association's annual meeting and serving up some red meat as he slammed Hillary Clinton. TRUMP: Crooked Hillary Clinton is the most anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment candidate ever to run for office, and as I said before, she wants to abolish the Second Amendment.
MURRAY: But Clinton has never said that. She's called for stricter gun control laws, but never for abolishing the Second Amendment. The debate over guns sets up a sharp general election split between the candidates. Clinton went so far and to labeled the NRA an enemy in a debate last year.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You've all made a few people of set over your political careers, which enemy are you most proud of?
HILLARY CLINTON, (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: In addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians. Probably the Republicans.
MURRAY: The contrast on gun rights is just one of the fault lines already emerging ahead of the general election. Trump not waiting for evidence, and sticking by his political instincts as he declared the crash of an EgyptAir flight an act of terror.
TRUMP: I can practically guarantee who blew it up.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But listen, listen.
TRUMP: And another plane went down.
MURRAY: So Clinton took a more measured approach.
CLINTON: It does appear that it was an act of terrorism. Exactly how of course the investigation will have to determine.
MURRAY: And laid out her plans to combat ISIS.
CLINTON: We are going to defeat them on the ground using our air power, equipping, and training, and supporting Arab and Kurdish fighters, we're going to drive them out of Iraq, drive them out of their strong hold in Raqqa, Syria.
MURRAY: In true Trump style, he offered a blunt prescription with few specifics.
TRUMP: I would say knock the hell out of ISIS which we could have done originally.
MURRAY: But Trump's promise that he won't back down against the terror group, may run up against what critics call his isolationist it's world view as he continues to blast the Obama administration decision to send some U.S. forces into Syria.
TRUMP: I would have stayed out of Syria and I wouldn't have fought so much for Assad, against Assad because I thought that was a whole thing.
MURRAY: A position that split into the left of many in his own party. (END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: Sara Murray joins us now. Sara, has the Clinton campaign responded to Trump's newest claims?
MURRAY: Well John, the Clinton camp is hitting back today not only did they call Donald Trump's foreign policy unhinged, but Hillary Clinton took the Twitter to talk about guns saying you're wrong, Donald Trump. We can uphold Second Amendment rights while preventing senseless gun violence. But John, in election year, I think it's very unlikely that you'll see Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump finding harmony on this issue any time soon.
[20:50:06] BERMAN: Probably true. Sara Murray, thank you so much.
Joining us now our CNN political commentators, Democratic strategist Paul Begala, he advices a pro-Hillary Clinton Super PAC and was an advisor to President Bill Clinton in the 1990's, and Kayleigh McEnany who supports Donald Trump.
Kayleigh I want to start with you, you heard Donald Trump say that Hillary Clinton wants to abolish the Second Amendment as Sara points out as many have pointed over the afternoon.
Mrs. Clinton never said that. It is not in fact true. Now I know he was playing to an NRA audience there, an audience that wants red meat. But don't the facts matter no matter what audience you're playing to?
KAYLEIGH MCENANY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Look, I think that there's a strong case to be made that what Donald Trump said is true, that she doesn't like the Second Amendment, that she like to see it rolled back in some capacity, because she herself had said she doesn't like the Supreme Court Second Amendment jurisprudence and decision in the Supreme Court said in district of Columbia versus Heller, that the D.C. assault -- not the D.C. assault with them but rather the D.C. ban on handguns was unconstitutional because it is in fact a constitutional right to bear arms.
So they essentially said if they constitutional right. She says she doesn't like the jurisprudence ...
BERMAN: She said.
MCENANY: ... on the Second Amendment, which you could make a strong case that that does means she doesn't in fact like the Second Amendment as it currently stands.
BERMAN: No, that you could make a case she doesn't like the Supreme Court decision on that case in Washington D.C. on the jurisdiction of Washington D.C., that doesn't mean, Kayleigh, and you know this, you are study -- you will be a great lawyer one day, I have no doubt, but it doesn't mean that she wants to abolish the Second Amendment, it is simply something she has not said.
Now, that doesn't mean ...
BERMAN: ... that doesn't mean Kayleigh, that her positions on guns and restricting some gun ownership is not unappealing to the NRA. That is certainly the case, correct? Isn't that enough do they?
MCENANY: I do want to point out though that just yesterday in one breath Hillary Clinton oversimplified four of Donald Trump's policies, saying he is for a complete ban on Muslims immigrant, saying that he praises the North Korea dictator who he is in fact calling maniac, saying that he attack Great Britain who in fact says that he hopes to have a good relationship with, so I mean two can play this game.
If we want to criticize Donald Trump for over simplifying Hillary Clinton's policies, we've got to do the same for Hillary Clinton who in fact over simplify that least three of Donald Trump policies just yesterday in an interview with Chris Cuomo.
BERMAN: All right I do understand you do want to be consistent, we do want to be consistent and holding the candidates claims up to be tested.
Paul, the idea of Hillary Clinton's position on guns, her actual position on guns, they could be a problem for her in swing states, you know, in that part of Pennsylvania that your friend once called Alabama, between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh in Ohio, which is the state of Virginia, in Colorado. These could be unpopular in these states which could matter a lot in this election.
PAUL BEGALA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: That's right. But she takes those positions anyway, I know, I'm not at all convinced it is a political winner. It's a matter of principle. She actually believes it., I know it's shocking because we are so used to Trump who is a con man, he's Don the con man, that's my nickname for him.
He's completely in coherent, Hillary is taking a principle view, I actually think it might cluster votes in places like Pennsylvania if she point out. But she believes it anyway. And she so pursuing something because she actually believes in it, that's called leadership, it's called political courage. Here is Mr. Trump's issue, he called literally, this were are his words Kayleigh, a complete and total ban on Muslims entering our country until we figure out what the hell is going on. OK so is a ban all Muslims from entering America, but he wants to allow ...
MCENANY: Non-U.S. citizens.
BEGALA: Excuse me for talking while you're interrupting. He wants to allow anyone on the terrorist watch list to buy a gun, that see how his position. If you're on a terrorist watch list, you should be able to buy a gun, but Trump's position, if you're Muslim, you can't come into America at all and that's incoherent, it's insane.
BERMAN: He did change it and say it is temporary until we figure it out.
BEGALA: Right. BERMAN: But he hasn't given ...
BEGALA: Until we figure, what the hell is going on.
BERMAN: Go ahead Kayleigh.