>> jeffrey thomas. >> oh. >> i don't believe so.k they're still very much focused on the human element here. i don't believe this is cargo or fire-related. as suggested in those scenarios, there were many places closer. the big question, to the end of its range, of its fuel onboard, and crash into the south indian ocean. the fire -- crash into the south indian ocean. the theories don't stack up in that area. >> and to jeff wise, does not being able to locate the pingers mean they're not in the water, or are sonars not close enough? >> the latter. they're only designed to be detectible for two miles. so, you want to design the search area based on elements above the surface. so, the answer is we need to get much closer. >> and what's your opinion of the information so far? >> well, i don't know if i'm qualified to give comments about that. i can say that the announcement by the malaysian government that there are no survivors does have legal implications to it. as well as the authority under the international investigation treaty to

mary schiavo you just heard from jeffrey thomas.believes there was nefarious human involvement that caused this. what do you make of his statement that he believes that the australian defense minister would not give a public statement in seven minutes if he did not have something of significance to say? >> i agree. i mean, the last announcement was fairly significant. this one too. i'm hoping -- i'm sure everyone's hoping it's not what we heard in the previous guest about perhaps calling off the search. but i don't know how they would identify for certain that the pieces that they are looking at and seeing are from the aircraft without having picked them up and put them on a ship for inspection. but maybe that's what it is going to be. that would be helpful news at this point. >> richard, you heard from jeffrey as well. you know him. well-placed gentleman. >> known jeffrey for many years. there's none better in the industry. i don't know if he is right. it might be that david johnson is feeling the need to give an overview and a rou

right now we understand jeffrey thomas is the editor of airlineratings.com. he's joining us from perth. jeffrey, thank you. there was a frenzy with this. they sent airlines to the search zone to determine if they could lay eyes on these objects. so far, nothing. what does that tell you? jeffrey thomas, are you there? all right. we are having -- >> hello. >> there you go, jeffrey. can you hear me now? >> i can hear you. yes, i can hear you, betty. can you hear me? >> yes, i hear you loud and clear. so yesterday we were in a frenzy because we got word that there were these satellite images that showed two objects out there in the indian ocean and then an aircraft was sent to the area between yesterday and as of right now there's still no word on them finding anything of significance. so what does that tell you? >> well, what it tells us is a tremendous challenge to locate the debris because of the distance it is from the base perth in western australia the aircraft are operating from. it's 1 1/2 thousand miles. it's like flying from chicago to los angeles search

thomas. >> so jeffrey cannot quite hear you but i'm going to ask what you he is asking. saying the plane wouldn't have made to it this altitude. and you brought up the idea of a left turn. a second left turn. >> tracking northeast toward beijing, we know it turned left toward the malaysian peninsula. we can it descend down to 12, possibly even 5,000 feet. then to get here it would have to make another left turn to go due south. so you've got four or five actions that have to be human. it wasn't programmed to do this. the flight program is to go northeast to beijing. >> and you've had this theory all along that it has been human. >> it can't be anything else but human. if it was a de appreciatization, if that happened. and this has happened before. the plane would have continued to go toward beijing. it would not have turned left, descended, climbed, deskrenled, turned left again. >> jeffrey thomas, thank you very much. >> thank you. thank you very much. more with our panel and news after a quick break. so our business can be on at&t's network for $175 a month? yup. all 5

after that assessment, they may postpone launching more aircraft today. >> jeffrey thomas, thank you so much for taking the time to talk to us. and they are going to fly right now, but it is going to be tougher as the waeather moves i. >> thank you, kyung lah, at the epicenter of the search area with the assets going up to take a look at the satellite images. and now to help us we have tom fuentes, and jim tillman, and cnn analyst and retired pilot himself, and our own cnn aviation analyst miles o'brien. mile miles, i want to start with you, just for the viewers to i suppose put the expectations into context here. this is the third satellite photo that we have had and treated as a clue, and the first one was really a disastrous mistake, and a chinese satellite as well, and put the search up there in the south china sea, and now we have a photo, and the australians said that there were a lot of planes in the air yesterday, and saw nothing, and how significant of a development is this or does it show just how little progress is made in the investigation that, you know, what they have t

. >>> joining us from perth, australia, is jeffrey thomas, editor of airline ratings.com. thank you for being with us this morning. >> pleasure. >> let's start with this. the satellite images show possible debris, yet nothing has been found so far. that can't be considered too much of a setback considering the conditions they had to deal with. >> you're absolutely right. the distance involved is very considerable. it is a little bit like flying from one side of the united states to the other, searching around los angeles in two hours and going back to the other side of america. it is a big mission. ten hours of flying and only two hours on station. and then you get on station, you're dealing with low cloud or fog. you're dealing with high seas. you're dealing with rain showers. it is a real challenge. and, i mean, there is enormous number of resources being thrown at this, ships arriving, even hearing today that three chinese warships are coming down to help in the search. it is really becoming a multinational cooperation between australia, the united states, china, new ze

i want to go to jeffrey thomas now. jeffrey, what do you make of what colleen is saying? seem to be chasing some pretty hot clues hopefully, but so far nothing has turned up. and maybe we should be look elsewhere, or start to look in other places? do you agree with that? >> look, it's certainly very, very frustrating, don. the difference between this flight and 447 is that with 447, we knew exactly where it was going. we had a very clear track of it. it still took us six days to find it after it disappeared. with this airplane, we lost it in the straits of malacca. and now we're using satellite pinging data to triangulate. we're getting evidence that we're not privy to. they haven't told us why they're looking in this particular area, and we asked them locally, and they said no comment. we can't discuss it. so we're not sure what the body of evidence is that points to this. i agree. after three or four more days of turning up nothing, then maybe we better go back to square one and relook at the numbers again. but they did sight some stuff yesterday that was termed as thei

let me turn to jeffrey thomas in perth, australia. obviously this is now the center of where this search is going on. jeffrey, what do you make of it all? here we are nearly three weeks into this enduring mystery, a mystery that may never be resolved. we just don't know yet. but what is your take on it all as we now talk tonight? >> look indeed, piers, this is the most complex, the most baffling, perplexing any adjective you like air disaster that i've ever covered. it's extraordinary. and to lose an airplane for three weeks is in this day and age you just have to scratch your head and think how come? how can this possibly be? but i agree with richard. the debris pictures we're getting now, they absolutely have to be wreckage from this airplane. they're too big. there's too many of them. and certainly we get debris in the ocean, unfortunately, but not of this scale. not of this size. and i do think the authorities know a little bit more about this than they're telling us. and of course, the resolution of those images is very degraded.

jeffrey wise? >> no, geoffrey thomas. geoffrey thomas? >> sorry, okay. beg your pardon.ook, electrical problem, you've got power from the engines, we know that, so you do have electrical power. you also have a ram air turbine which also provides electrical backup power. there are so many backups on the 777. there is not a scenario that would take out everything and allow the plane to keep flying at the same time. so no, i don't believe that's the case. >> what are the legal implications of all of these scenarios, any of these scenarios here? >> well, as against malaysia air, no matter what the result is found to be, malaysia air is going to be responsible. whether it's hijacking, a terrorist act, act of the pilot, pilot suicide or mechanical failure, they will be responsible. >> my question is now, can malaysia airlines sustain this? can they afford to be in business after this? >> sure, they can. they have at least have $1 billion in insurance. so their liability will probably approach that amount, but they can withstand it with that insurance. >> there's always the gov

i want to go back to perth, australia, jeffrey thomas, editing chief and managing director of airlinecom. are you hearing anything over there, your investigation that's going on, jeffrey, whether this is more inclined to be a human being responsible for this or some sort of mechanical failure? >> look, wolf, we're hearing the human being element. as was just mentioned, this plane, we know has made several turns, several changes in altitude, this wasn't in the fmc, the flight management computer, so this has to be human intervention. there's an interesting element with the co-pilot signing off. he signed off, all right, good night. that's not normal signoff, he should have said mh 370, he should have read back what air traffic control told him. he just said all right, good night. maybe that was a coded message saying i'm not all right. i don't know. it's one of the many mysteries of this extraordinary disappearance. >> the british newspaper, the telegraph, as you know, they published what they say is the transcript of those 54 minutes of communications between air traffic controllers o

jeffrey thomas is editor in chief and managing director at airlineratings.com and joins me by phone. i understand you're hearing from your own sources that there are multiple radar returns in a search area indicating something is there. what more can you tell us about that? >> look, there were some additional radar returns yesterday, we understand. we also understand that there was some more satellite data that indicates that there is a little bit more debris than the two major pieces that have been identified. but the major focus is on the size of the largest piece of debris, which is the 24 meter, about 65 foot long piece. which one might think could be part of wing or part of the horizontal stabilizer of this aircraft. >> let me just drill down a little bit on that satellite information and the radar information you're talking about. do you know what the sources of that radar information is? is it radar information from planes or from ships, or from something else? >> there was additional confirmation from satellites, according to the australian maritime search and rescue organiza

. >> reporter: well, jeffrey thomas, he works for a well respected publication here, airline ratings.com's an aviation expert. he knows many people inside, knows many people involved directly in this search. what he's saying is he actually does believe that the australian government, that the french, chinese, the images, they have it right, the wreckage if this is indeed connected to the missing plane if that is wreckage, that it is connected to the missing plane. so he believes the search is going appropriately. he believes that if the plane did dip 12,000 feet, it had to go back up to 37,000 to make it all the way here because you have to get that far up in order to make it this far south. that's what he believes. and so what he is taking the leap of is that it has to be human intervention because if you go down, you have to come up by human intervention. >> kyung lah with the search in perth, australia. let's hope they do find something that offers these families at least some information or maybe possibly some hope. thank you, kyung. appreciate it. back to kyung lah. searchers could

. >> all right, jeffrey thomas, a busy time for you and everyone out there. thanks for spending time with us in perth, appreciate it. >> back with us tonight, we have robert hager, retired news aviation correspondent and returning is a former corporate pilot. let me go right to you robert on the transcript. you know a lot about this. give us the context. >> i thought it might be important to understand, first of all, this came from the newspaper and we're taking their word for it. they believe it's an accurate transcript, but nbc doesn't know for sure. >> not independently confirmed other than the british newspaper. >> right. it's a transcript of the conversation the pilots have with the air traffic controllers. so the recording is made back at air traffic control. it's just what was said over the airwaves. so it's not to be confused with a cockpit voice recorder which would give you the ambient sound, tell you what the pilot and co-pilot are saying to each other. this is only what they're reporting back. we're just getting the formal stuff. it is quite spare

>> jeffrey thomas. >> sorry, okay. beg your pardon.lectrical problem -- the you have power from the engines. we know that. so you have electrical power and turbine that drops in the airstream that provides electrical backup power. there are so many backups on the 777, there's not a scenario that would take out everything and allow the plane to keep flying at the same time. i don't believe that's the case. >> what are the legal implications of all of these scenarios, any of the scenarios here? >> well, as against malaysian air, i believe no matter what the result is found to be malaysia air will be responsible. whether it is hijacking, terrorist act, act of the pilot, mechanical pilot, malaysian air will be responsible. >> the issue is somebody else was involved in. this my question is now can malaysian airlines sustain this? can they afford to be in business after this? >> well with, sure they can. they at least have $1 billion in insurance. their liability will approach that amount, but they can with stand it with that insurance. >> i

jeffrey thomas, great to see you. thanks so much. >>> we'll take a break. chance to fly with new zealand's royal air force looking for the missing jetliner or at least some missing debris and you'll get to see what they are up against ahead. at farmers we make you smarter about your insurance, because what you don't know can hurt you. what if you didn't know that taking pictures of your belongings helps when you have a claim? or that farmers offers a policy that'll replace your car with a new one, if it's totalled within the first two model years. and that parking near a street lamp deters thieves. the more you know, the better you can plan for what's ahead. talk to farmers and get smarter about your insurance. we are farmers. >>> welcome back. i'm joining you live from perth, australia this morning. it's been 17 days since malaysia airlines flight 370 vanished from radar screens with 239 people on board. overnight australian and chinese pilots separately spotted objects floating in the southern indian ocean. the search area is one of the most remote places

jeffrey thomas is managing director of airline ratings.com.rth, you're an expert. do you think this debris that the satellite images discovered that the australian prime minister says is a great lead, a great new lead, you think this is wreckage from the plane? >> look, i think it's very credible that it is wreckage. the place we're talking about here is about 60-feet long. this is not small wreckage that you find in the sea all the time, small debris. this is a very large piece, consistent with maybe being the horizontal stabilizer of the airplane. like we saw with air france 447. and there's another piece which is about 30-foot long. and it's also in precisely the area that the united states, australia and new zealand have been searching. it's just to the east, which reflects the drift of the ocean. so this kind of all comes together. it looks highly likely. >> and if you think about it, you're australian, geoffrey, the prime minister of australia goes before parliament and he raises this possibility saying it's a strong possibility this cou

supreme court justice clarence thomas is an embarrassment and demeans the court, those strong words from cnn's senior legal analyst jeffreye writes for the nos"the new magazine and his piece about this. it has been exactly eight years since clarence thomas last posed a question during oral arguments. the other eight justices ask questions all the time of the lawyers presenting their cases to the court. it's how they figure out what the holes in the legal argument might be. according to jeffs this means thomas is tuned out. why do we hear so little about this in the press. joining me is jeffrey toobin and here in new york, jamal greene, professor at columbia law school. jeff, let me start with you, why do you think we don't hear more in the press from reporters other than you about this lack of questioning from clarence tom mass? >> i think the people who cover the court take it for granted and it is true that justice thomas, he votes like the other justices, he writes opinions in the way the other justices do, he writes the same number give or take, and the oral argument is certainly not the most important part of being a

supporters thomas gore and howard brooks plead guilty to covering up those payments to suliman brown. next jeannie clark harris, a long-time supporter of gray and a business partner of jeffrey thompson plead guilty to funneling more than $650,000 from thompson to a shadow campaign for gray. not long after that, three business associates of thompson, lee calhoun, troy white, and stanley slaughter plead guilty to helping thompson illegally fund national campaigns, including hillary clinton's. and then a long-time associate of both thompson and gray, vernon hawkins, plead guilty to lying to investigators about the shadow campaign. former councilmember michael brown has now admitted to not only taking bribes, but also taking illegal campaign funds from thompson through harris. three years after the investigation began, we have eight people have already plead guilty, and it appears thompson will make nine. mark segraves, news4. >>> right now if you live in the area of d.c., highlighted on this map, you should still boil your water before you drink it. the district is waiting for more test results before declaring the water safe for drinking. a power outage at the fort reno pumpi