Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

Interview With Ann Coulter; Search for Flight 370; Profiting From Grief; Flight 370 Satellite Data to Be Released

Aired May 19, 2014 - 22:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. This is CNN TONIGHT. I'm Don Lemon.

You're looking live at One World Trade Center, a symbol for many people of just how far we have come since the very dark days of 9/11. For the families of the 2,753 people who died at the World Trade Center, the wounds are still raw.

And for some the new 9/11 Memorial and Museum is upsetting. They say its gift shop selling key chains and T-shirts disrespects the memory of those we lost.

Well, tonight, I'm going to Ann Coulter if the museum is profiting from grief.

And half a world away, we are awaiting word from data on Flight 370 that could be released at any moment, while Malaysia's former prime minister says someone is hiding something when it comes to Flight 370, and he is questioning whether Boeing or the CIA might be involved.

And I want you to take a look at this. That is a movie about Flight 370 already? That was for the proposed film "The Vanishing Act" by director Rupesh Paul. We're going to get into all of that tonight.

But, first, I want to take a look it this whole notion of profiting off of grief and in some cases even death. Last night, we saw Michael Jackson performing at the Billboard Music Awards. Yes, he died five years ago, but through the magic of technology, there he was live and in living hologram promoting an album from beyond the grave. He joins the ranks of Tupac at Coachella -- that was just a few years back -- Elvis singing a duet with Celine Dion, Marilyn Monroe in a perfume commercial.

If you ask me, though, it's more than just a little creepy. And by the way, Jackson, Presley and Monroe are still top celebrity moneymakers, millions upon millions of dollars every single year, even in death.

But those are performers. They're icons who knew their legacies would endure. The people who lost their lives on 9/11 didn't know that, nor did their families. And now that a museum a decade in the making is now selling 9/11 memorabilia, some families are asking, how can you make money off our dead loved ones?

And it raises a good question for all of us collectively. Where do we draw the line? When is it OK to make money off other people's grief or death? Is it ever? We're going to discuss that.

But, first, we are going to start with some breaking news tonight. It is on Clippers owner, for the moment anyway, Donald Sterling. The NBA took away its first -- took its first legal step to force Donald Sterling out of the league, giving him until May 27 to respond to their charges. He will be allowed to make a presentation in his defense. That's at a special board of governors meeting scheduled for June 3.

The league declined to comment on reports Sterling has asked for an extension.

But Ann Coulter will comment, of course. And she's the author of "Never Trust a Liberal Over 3-Especially a Republican."

It's always great to see you.

Hey, Ann, you doing OK?

ANN COULTER, AUTHOR, "NEVER TRUST A LIBERAL OVER 3-ESPECIALLY A REPUBLICAN": Yes. Good to see you, Don Lemon.

LEMON: It's good to see you as well. Wish you were here in studio with me. I was hoping you would be.

But let me tell you, "Sports Illustrated" is reporting this tonight. They're reporting that Donald Sterling's attorney has asked for three months to respond. Why do you think he needs three months?

(LAUGHTER)

COULTER: I think the lawyer needs three months to run up his bill.

(LAUGHTER)

COULTER: Sorry. I shouldn't say that, as a fellow lawyer.

I don't know. I get kind of depressed hearing about Donald Sterling. I wrote a column about it. I don't think he is representative of white people, of sports owners, of Americans. I mean, this guy has been openly whoring around for years without anyone pointing that out. I think the whole thing is depressing, and I wish it would go away.

LEMON: Do you think he should lose his team, Ann, because of what he said?

COULTER: You know, I never really thought about that, because the most shocking part of the story to me was, I had been listening. I was traveling the week the story broke.

And I probably heard eight hours of commentary on Donald Sterling before I heard the phrase "his wife." And then you find out that he -- I thought they changed stories when I walked out of the room.

No, no, no, they are talking about Donald Sterling. He is married. He has been married to the same woman for 40, 50 years, and he's openly consorting with prostitutes. In fact, he sued one of his prostitutes. He sued her for the return of property.

LEMON: Yes.

COULTER: And the deposition reads like, you know, something out of "Penthouse." And this is the first we're hearing about it?

Now, then, at the same time, it is kind of creepy being taped secretly, though I think he's a creepy person. But he's in his own house and -- yes.

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: You have some expectation of privacy in your own house.

So, listen, he is refusing to pay the $2.5 million. That's the initial fine. Do you think he should fight? I know that you think it's a little creepy being taped in your own house and that's a separate issue. But do you think that he should just go away? Or do you think his team should be taken away from him?

COULTER: Yes.

LEMON: You think he should just go away?

COULTER: That is a good summary of my position. I wish he would just go away.

LEMON: Yes.

You mentioned his wife, Shelly Sterling. She is -- her attorney -- her attorney responded to the NBA today saying, listen, she is innocent in all this, she should not lose her 50 percent. Do you think it's fair to punish her in some sense for what her husband said, her husband's actions?

COULTER: No. I mean, she seems like a victim, in my book.

She married him before he had any money. She isn't some prostitute gold digger. And she was the one who brought the lawsuit to get, what was it, a Bentley, a Ferrari, a $1.8 million apartment that her husband had given to his mistress, to get it back. The mistress complained and said, I will get you. And that was apparently what led to the illegal taping.

And it is kind of a funny transcript, though, like I say, I was really captivated by the fact this guy has been openly whoring all these years, and that is not even 1 percent of the outrage against him.

LEMON: Yes.

COULTER: But the -- to look at the transcript of what he was being taped saying, she is clearly the one leading him into. He is not the one who brings up her hanging around with black people. She is.

LEMON: So, OK. But so -- but you don't think -- you think the wife is being punished for something Donald Sterling did and she shouldn't be punished? Is that what you're...

COULTER: Yes. I'm sure if you look into anyone's life, you can find something someone would object to, especially someone who wants to buy the team.

(CROSSTALK)

COULTER: But she seems like a blameless victim.

LEMON: Being 50 -- 50 years of marriage, she had to know something about his character.

COULTER: Yes, she must have known since often sitting on the other side of Donald from her was one of his prostitutes. But I don't know.

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: All right. All right, Ann.

I know what a big women's libber you are, so I want to ask you about this. Let's talk about Jill Abramson, formerly of "The New York Times." Did she get fired because she is a terrible manager or because she is a woman?

COULTER: Well, I don't think we know from the facts.

But I can not tell you how much I am loving this catfight, and particularly, "The New York Times" using a defense that it wouldn't allow Goodyear to use if they had a woman who was being paid less than a man.

"The New York Times" is all in favor of the Equal Pay Act, the Lilly Ledbetter act, and, oh, is it not a defense to say, no, we paid this man more because he had more experience. It might be a defense. But you have to take it to court and persuade a jury that this was not based on sex. It's not an automatic defense to come up with reasonable, apparently reasonable reasons to have been paying a man more than a woman.

So, it is a little ironic having "The New York Times" foist on its own gender equity petard.

LEMON: Petard.

But do you think there's a double standard between men and women? Because they're saying, oh, her -- she was mercurial or she was kind of bitchy or whatever, whatever they're saying about her.

COULTER: Bossy.

LEMON: Bossy. They wouldn't necessarily say that about him.

COULTER: They might, but, again, hilarious coming from "The New York Times."

(CROSSTALK) LEMON: You are talking about the liberal "New York Times," right? Is that what you're saying? Well, just say it, Ann. What do you mean?

COULTER: Yes, and they are fulfilling every sexist stereotype.

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: You are getting joy out of this.

COULTER: Oh, beyond belief.

LEMON: I want you to listen to her commencement address today at Wake Forest University. She talked about being fired.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JILL ABRAMSON, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": What's next for me? I don't know.

So I'm in exactly the same boat as many of you.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: It looks like she is taking it pretty well.

COULTER: Well, the sympathy, I would say, is way on her side in the press.

And, yes, it was a funny speech. It was good. And I was glad she gave this one. I was a little appalled and tweeted about it this weekend when I saw -- well, remember, there is the Muslim woman, Ms. Ali Hirsi, or Hirsi Ali, the one who is with AEI.

And her big campaign is, she left Islam because she was in arranged marriages and being abused. And her big campaign is to oppose clitorectomies. And at Brandeis, the good students and administration of Brandeis decided that was a controversial position, to be against clitorectomies, canceled Ali Hirsi as the commencement speaker, and then got Jill Abramson.

Now, Jill Abramson didn't say no then. You have dishonored a woman who is opposing the stoning of women who have been raped and clitorectomies throughout the Islamic world. But she does withdraw when she loses a half-million-dollar-a-year job. So, at least she didn't cancel the Wake Forest one. I think she never should have agreed to the Brandeis one.

LEMON: I never would have dreamed in a million years that I would be sitting here on national television talking to Ann Coulter about clitorectomies.

(LAUGHTER)

COULTER: It's a dream come true. LEMON: It is a dream come true.

LEMON: Ann, I want you to stick -- stay with me, because I have a lot more to ask you.

When we come back, I want to know what you think of the outrage over the 9/11 Museum's gift shop. Is it disrespectful to buy a souvenir mouse pad or outfit for your dog on what for many is perceived to be hallowed ground?

What do you think? Tweet us using the hashtag about this and other things at #askdon.

We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: New York's Freedom Tower, officially One Trade Center, is a beautiful sight tonight. Look at it.

But across the street at the 9/11 Memorial Museum, some family members are outraged over a money-making gift shop that they say disrespects the memories of their loved ones.

CNN's Jason Carroll has that story now.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JASON CARROLL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Just days away from the public opening of the 9/11 Memorial Museum, there is controversy again at Ground Zero. Praised for its beauty and dignity, there is growing criticism of high admission fees, $24 to get in, and the sale of souvenirs at the gift shop.

JIM RICHES, FATHER OF 9/11 VICTIM: I think it's a revenue-generating tourist attraction.

CARROLL: Jim Riches shares the same sentiment shown in this "New York Post" headline titled "Little Shop of Horror," on sale, items such as silk scarves with images of the Twin Towers, bracelets and stuffed animals, not the way Riches says his son, Jimmy, should be remembered, a firefighter killed on that day.

RICHES: Basically, making money off my son's dead body, I think it's disgusting.

JOE DANIELS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 9/11 MEMORIAL AND MUSEUM: What we know is, it's the right thing, that when visitors come here, they want to take a keepsake away.

CARROLL: Joe Daniels is president and CEO of the September 11 Memorial and Museum. He has spent the last eight years developing the site, which will cost an estimated $65 million per year to run. The museum receives no government funding and relies on donations, revenue from tickets,and money from that gift shop.

(on camera): Should you be extra sensitive about what you sell there?

DANIELS: You know, the truth is, this is the United States of America. And the number one thing is, if you don't like what we're segment, don't buy it. The number one seller in our gift shop is a book called "The Place of Remembrance," which talks about the building of the memorial.

LEE IELPI, 9/11 MEMORIAL AND MUSEUM: Do I expect to say that everything we have done here is absolutely 100 percent right? There's always bumps in the road.

CARROLL: Lee Ielpi lost his son Jonathan, who was a firefighter here. And while not perfect, Ielpi says the 9/11 Memorial Museum, just like the USS Arizona Memorial in Pearl Harbor or the Oklahoma City National Memorial and Museum, which are also located at sacred sites and have gift shops.

IELPI: Someone has to pay for these things, regardless of how powerful it is.

CARROLL: For Ielpi, the feeling he has for his son when he sees his name at the reflecting pool far outweighs any controversy.

IELPI: It's reflecting absence. It's as if their souls are falling into the water.

CARROLL (on camera): A fitting tribute for Jonathan?

IELPI: For all of them, yes, absolutely.

CARROLL: Jason Carroll, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LEMON: Jason, thank you very much.

Back now with Ann Coulter.

Ann, what do you make of this controversy? Is it is OK to have a gift shop that sells items like that, neckties?

COULTER: Yes, absolutely. The Holocaust Museum has a gift shop.

This is a museum. It is not a museum over some, like, car crash or something. This was an attack on the nation. Anyone who was alive at that time remembers -- there were no commercials on television. Everyone would wake up on the morning and turn on the TV. You would go to sleep at night with a remote control in your hands.

This was a massive, devastating attack on the nation. It is not about an individual -- an individual -- I mean, obviously, Americans feel massive sympathy and kindness toward the people -- the survivors of the people who died. And, thus, they have been paid well.

But this is a museum. And to act like everything has to bend to these survivors of a particular -- a particular victim in this, this wasn't a car accident. It was an attack on the country and Americans have very strong feelings about it. I think this is a very silly controversy.

LEMON: Ann, I have to let you go, but I understand your feelings. But it may be easier for you to say or I to say that or anyone because we don't have family members there. And so I agree that -- I believe that you can say what you want to say about...

COULTER: True. I would leave you with the thought that the Holocaust Museum has a gift shop.

LEMON: OK.

Ann Coulter, thank you. Always appreciate you.

Let's turn now to Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis, who represents Brooklyn and Staten Island in the New York State Assembly. Also, two 9/11 family members are with us. Alison Crowther, her son Welles became known the man in the red bandana. Remember him? He saved dozens of people before losing his own life. And then Rosaleen Tallon's brother, firefighter Sean Patrick Tallon, was also lost on 9/11.

I really appreciate all of you joining me tonight.

Alison, first of all, let me ask you, what do you make of what Ann Coulter said about that? How do you feel?

ALISON CROWTHER, MOTHER OF 9/11 VICTIM: Well, I'm pretty much in agreement with exactly what she said. And Lee Ielpi said the same thing.

I am a businesswoman. And I have on many occasions over the years worked as a fund-raiser for nonprofit organizations on a volunteer basis. But I know the challenges of doing this. And the costs of -- this museum is beautiful. It's in a sacred space.

I have never seen any group of people take more care over a longer period of time to honor the families' feelings and the various, all the different opinions on every element of this project. So, to me, it's perfectly fine to have a gift shop. They have to raise money to keep this museum open and going, and it doesn't come free.

LEMON: OK.

I want to hear -- I want you to hear what the president said about your son on Thursday at the museum, and about your son on Thursday. Take a listen.

CROWTHER: Thank you.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Three years ago this month,after our SEALs made sure that justice was done, I came to Ground Zero. And among the families here that day was Alison Crowther.

And she told me about wells and his fearless spirit. And she showed me a handkerchief like the one he wore that morning. And, today, as we saw on our tour, one of his red handkerchiefs is on display in this museum. And from this day forward, all those who come here will have a chance to know the sacrifice of a young man, who, like so many, gave his life so others might live.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: And that was a beautiful tribute to your son, the president speaking on Thursday at the dedication of the museum.

And you're OK with it.

But, Rosaleen, I wanted -- your brother Sean Patrick Tallon, firefighter who died on 9/11, unlike Alison, I understand that you have a problem with the gift shop. What it is?

ROSALEEN TALLON, SISTER OF 9/11 VICTIM: Well, what is really disturbing to many families, my group that is involved with the 9/11 parents and families of firefighters, we are very upset that the remains are down in the basement of the museum.

Ann Coulter mentioned that the Holocaust Museum, that they have a gift shop. The one thing the Holocaust Museum doesn't have are the remains of victims. There's going to be -- there's a tomb of the unidentified victims down in the basement of the museum.

And it's very disrespectful to have a gift shop near that. And we really wanted those remains to be above ground on the plaza where the trees and waterfalls were, not down in the basement of a museum next to the gift shop. That's what is really very disturbing to the families and that's what is very different from the Holocaust Museum.

LEMON: Nicole, does she have a point here?

NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS (R), NEW YORK ASSEMBLYWOMAN: Look, I think that it's a very sensitive, very emotional topic.

And I do believe that both actually have very good, valid points, and there is a balance that could be achieved here. This memorial does need money to operate. The federal government should be stepping in to help cover a lot of this cost.

They are going to be spending $12 million alone on security. And now I haven't seen the federal government yet make a commitment to try to offset that cost. With regard to the memorial and the gift shop, I think some items I could see as being appropriate, patriotic items, flags, bumper stickers that say, we will never forget, so people could display their pride in New York.

But there's other items in there that I saw in the catalog that were perhaps a bit insensitive. We're talking about charm bracelets, talking about earrings, silk scarves, ties. And I could see how many of the families could find that upsetting. LEMON: Yes, neckties with the old skeleton of the former World Trade Center, the imprint on it.

I want you all to stay with me, ladies.

We come right back, I want to get your reactions to the so-called truthers and their theory that 9/11 was an inside job.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Almost 13 years after 9/11, a museum dedicated to the memory of those who died is causing outrage and upsetting some families.

Back with me now, New York State Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis and family members Alison Crowther and Rosaleen Tallon.

Again, thank you all for joining us.

Alison, I want to turn to you, because you said that you are OK with this gift shop. But what do you -- how do you feel about these truthers that are coming and sort of promulgating this whole myth of 9/11 that it was an inside job outside the museum at the memorial? What do you make of that?

CROWTHER: Well, I think it is very unfortunate and it's very insensitive of these people.

But this is a country that has freedom of speech. So, you know, I suppose they have their right to say whatever they feel. They are not well-informed. You know, nobody was standing there pushing a button and saying, all right, time to collapse the buildings. The buildings were structurally compromised by the attacks.

And when they were built, as I understand it -- I attended the skyscraper safety hearings for the 9/11 Commission. And I understood that these buildings were designed to come straight down if anything happened, was unimaginable at that time, to prevent larger, greater damage of them toppling over in one piece.

So you know, nobody pushed that button and said, all right, time to collapse these things. They just -- they just came down. You know, people have been saying the world is ending in big newspaper headlines for a long time. So it's just -- I put it in that category of utter nonsense. And if they -- you know, people just need to be informed.

LEMON: Nicole, there are some folks, I think like Rosaleen, who believe that this site is a terrorist target now. Do you think that -- you're an assemblywoman from here in New York State. Do you think that we are safer now, especially in New York City, than we were in 2001?

MALLIOTAKIS: I certainly do.

I mean, I certainly think we are safer and our government is doing the best they can to product us. Our military men and women, the NYPD, FDNY, everyone is really work together at all levels of government to ensure that this site and all of New York City and all of America remains safe.

LEMON: Yes.

Rosaleen, I have to ask you about this new film that we found out today is being pitched at the Cannes Film Festival about Flight 370, already, just three months after the plane went missing and no sign of it. You know what is it like to lose a loved one in a situation like and then a plane involved as well. What do you make? Is it too soon to have the families deal with that grief?

TALLON: I think it's just too soon because they haven't really got any answers for their loved ones yet.

I think it's a little bit too soon for even the public to be thinking about watching a movie. We need more investigation and more of an understanding. I mean, it's so mysterious that it disappeared like that, that I think for all of us, we all need a bit of time to figure out what happened before we make a movie about it. It seems -- it's too much Hollywood.

LEMON: Yes. There was a movie made, Alison, about United Flight 93. But do you think it's too soon about this MH370? You have been there. You know.

CROWTHER: Well, I think what probably will happen is that the public will decide it's too soon to watch it or the public is going to decide they want to know as much as they can.

These horrible events, it's a shame people leap right away to make a film about it, when even, how accurate could it be, because people don't even know the details of what happened?

LEMON: Right.

CROWTHER: I think that's a mistake.

LEMON: Alison, Nicole, Rosaleen, thank you all very much. I want to thank all my guests.

And when we come right back, new information on Flight 370, long- awaited -- that long-awaited satellite data.

Also a movie about the missing plane is in the works. I'll ask the question again, is it too soon?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: We have some breaking news tonight on Flight 370. A joint statement from Malaysia and Inmarsat about the long-awaited raw satellite data. I want to go now to CNN's Saima Mohsin, who is in Kuala Lumpur with us. What does this statement say, Saima?

SAIMA MOHSIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Don, yes, just in the last minute before you came to me, actually, this came through into our e-mail. It says that, "In moving forward, it's imperative for us to provide helpful information to the next of kin and general public." And what they're referring to is this crucial raw data that the family members have been pushing for. They've had it at the top of the agenda, and so have we here at CNN, to get this from Inmarsat and the Malaysian government.

They say that they are going to release the raw data and data communication logs. And they go on. I want to read this to you, so we get this right, "which will include the data communication logs, as well as relevant explanation to enable the reader to understand the data provided. It must also be noted that the data communication logs is just one of many elements of the investigation."

So basically, Don, finally what the families have been pushing for all these weeks is that raw data, those data communication logs which is basically the same thing. They're going to get them.

Now late last night here in Kuala Lumpur, the minister for -- acting minister for transportation and defense minister, Hishammuddin Hussein, released a statement saying that he was going to push the DCA and Inmarsat to do that. They finally say they're going to do that, but they want to do it in a presentable way -- Don.

LEMON: All right. Thank you, Saima. I appreciate you.

I want to bring in my panel of experts here: Jeff Wise, a CNN aviation expert and author of "Extreme Fear: The Science of Your Mind in Danger"; David Soucie, CNN safety analyst and author of "Why Planes Crash"; and here with me in studio in the hot seat is Jules Jaffe, research oceanographer at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

First to you, David. I want to turn right to you. David Soucie, what do you make of this information that is coming out that we just got from Inmarsat?

DAVID SOUCIE, CNN SAFETY ANALYST: I think it's a result of all the hard work and the effort and the push from the families, from Voice 370, from the general public. It's a real testament to the fact that, you know, banding together and pushing for something can happen.

It's critical information to have. It will do so much for verifying the information that we've gotten before as to where it is. I think it's a fantastic thing, Don.

LEMON: Jeff, you have been wanting this information to come out for a very long time now. Do you think that, with this information, that we're going to start to see new theories about exactly what happened?

JEFF WISE, CNN AVIATION ANALYST: Yes. I mean, it's really -- the box is going to open and we're going to get to finally look inside and see what all this has meant for all these months. So it could produce more theories. It will probably cancel out a lot of theories. I think we'll be able, hopefully, to have a much better understanding of what's been going on all this time.

LEMON: I want to follow up with you on that, Jules, a little bit more, because you've seen all this information that's supposed to come out now. Do you think that this is going to change? Because we've been looking, basically, in the same place because of this Inmarsat data. Do you think this will change that and we'll start to look in new places?

JULES JAFFE, RESEARCH OCEANOGRAPHER: Well, you know, it's hard to know. I mean, what we really like to have is many smart people working on this problem as possible. And so making the data available in a more public type of venue will just facilitate that process, so it's really hard to know.

But in the least, if the same conclusions are basically concluded by people looking at this data, other experts, we'll feel more confident that we're looking in the right place.

LEMON: So there have been people who have suggested that the best way to look now, because, you know, the Bluefin is off doing something and being repaired and lots of things are happening. The best way to look for this plane is to let a piece of debris wash up on shore and then trace it back to where it possibly came from. Do you think that is the best way of doing that?

JAFFE: No, not really. I mean, it seems like -- you know, one of the things that we know about the ocean and that makes it so interesting from a scientific point of view, is the variability. I mean, you get these big storms blowing in, and the currents change. And to make the assumption that this ocean is going to be exactly the same as it was two months ago seems to me to besomewhat trans-scientific. I would like to talk to a bunch of physical oceanographers.

LEMON: My question is to you. Do you think -- and I've been -- you know, I've had you on several times.

JAFFE: Sure.

LEMON: But you think this plane is in the southern Indian Ocean? Do you think -- and all this information that we have gotten from Inmarsat, this is the No. 1 probability? Do you think it's actually there or we're looking in the wrong location?

JAFFE: I'm hoping that it's there. And I know I'm not answering your question.

LEMON: You're not answering. Doesn't answer my question.

JAFFE: But I'm a scientist, right? So the facts are we have these equations. You saw the two trajectories. Smarter people than I at this are making that conclusion. And so I hope so, Don, but I can't say for sure. You know, I mean...

LEMON: What does your gut tell you?

JAFFE: My gut tells me that's probably where is it. And I'm hoping that that's where it is.

LEMON: So the best technology to use to find it? Because as I said, the Bluefin is being repaired. JAFFE: Right.

LEMON: So what's the best technology?

JAFFE: Well, you know, people who do this kind of work use exactly that technology. I mean, there's been some discussions about other technologies: should we have a towed system? Can we work 24/7 with that system? We'd have more power.

But the reality is, imagine yourself driving through a mountain range...

LEMON: Right.

JAFFE: ... or flying a kite at 6 miles. Right? We have a 6-mile cable and we're towing this thing around through a mountain range, the vehicles have the capability of tracking the bottom. And so they can actually keep a fixed distance of the bottom. They actually use high -- more high-resolution technology; the sonars give us more precise resolution.

And so I think -- you know, what I think and my community of people who I've reached out to since I've been on your show so many times, have all agreed that the autonomous underwater vehicles, the deep- diving autonomous underwater vehicles are the right way to solve this problem.

LEMON: OK. So I want to turn back to these guys back on the wall here. So Jeff, what do you think this new information is going to show, if anything?

JEFF WISE, CNN AVIATION ANALYST: Well, really, the big question is the one you're just talking about. Why do we think that this plane is in the southern ocean? Now you remember back to March 25...

LEMON: You don't think it's in the southern Indian Ocean?

WISE: I don't know why it's supposed to be in the southern ocean. I don't know. I have no idea where this plane is.

But it's very curious that on March 25 the prime minister of Malaysia said that Inmarsat had done some kind of fancy new math that he couldn't really explain.

LEMON: Right.

WISE: But that somehow from it, they deduced that it had to be in the southern ocean. We don't -- we're no closer today than we were then to understanding what that analysis was. How did they reach that conclusion? No one has been able to produce a mathematical algorithm that would be able to produce that kind of conclusion.

LEMON: OK.

WISE: We're going to look inside this box and see what happens.

LEMON: David, what do you think it's going to show?

SOUCIE: Yes, I don't know if it will tell us north or south either, Jeff. I wish that it would. But because of the fact of how they determined that, was by looking at information about other aircraft that had gone to the north and gone to the south and comparing it to what they had from 370.

So I haven't heard any mention of the fact they're going to release that. They're going to release what Inmarsat had on MH-370. So I'm not confident that it's going to tell us north or south still. I think it will tell us more accurately what the south conclusion is. But again, I don't think it will do that.

LEMON: All right, gentlemen. Stick with me. Because next, a new theory. The former prime minister of Malaysia thinks Boeing and the CIA are behind the disappearance of Flight 370.

Also, a Flight 370 movie is already in the works and drawing strong reaction.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Welcome back to our breaking news tonight. Raw satellite data on Flight 370 soon to be released. The families of Flight 370's passengers have waited nearly three months for any word on the fate of their loved ones.

And joining me now via Skype is K.S. Narendran, and his wife, Chandrika Sharma. Sharma was a passenger on the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370.

I appreciate you coming back to speak with us. And just a few weeks have passed, Naren, since we have spoken. Again, your wife, Chandrika, was on that flight and I want to get your reaction on this statement now that the raw data, satellite data will soon be released from Inmarsat. What do you think of that?

K.S. NARENDRAN, HUSBAND OF FLIGHT 370 PASSENGER: No... (AUDIO GAP)

LEMON: Apparently, we're having trouble with that Naren.

Let's get back to my panel now: Jules Jaffe, David Soucie and Jeff Wise. You know, and we'll try to work on getting Naren. He's joined us a couple times here.

You've worked first-hand with the search for Titanic.

JAFFE: Right.

LEMON: There is a real pressure to find out what happened to this plane because of the families here. There is a real responsibility here. With this data coming out, with all the information we have, are we any closer three months later?

JAFFE: It's sad, and I grieve that the losses of the people whose family and friends were on that plane need to be resolved. But I don't think so. I mean, the only thing we really know now is that there's 100 square miles in the Indian Ocean where it isn't. That's the fact.

LEMON: Right. We talked about the Bluefin being under repairs. And then there is a Chinese ship that's going to be sent in the search area to map the ocean floor. If you were in charge, is this where you would be headed -- heading, or would you be doing something different?

JAFFE: Well, I think if we're going to be continuing these autonomous vehicle operations, what we really need to understand is the topography of the sea floor.

And although it's unbelievable and somewhat fascinating to people who don't study the ocean, we just don't have a clue as to what most of the ocean floor looks like. I mean, the planet has been mapped very, very poorly.

So if the Chinese go out and look and figure out what the topography -- you know, where the canyons are, where the hills are, I think that's going to help in the search. Because depending upon the different types of technologies that we can use, that will be good information. Get the lay of the land, in other words, so that we can figure out a strategy for exploring it.

LEMON: Yes. David Soucie, back to my guests on the wall. David Soucie, what do you make. It's called "Vanished" now, this movie that's being shopped around at Cannes Film Festival about 370. Is it too soon? What do you think of it?

SOUCIE: It's incredibly too soon, Don. It's disrespectful. It's insensitive. I -- it's just -- I can't believe that someone would want to go out there and put the families through even more than they have been. But I think the public is smart enough not to even bother watching this movie, because it's just obviously a reach at trying to get attention and prey on somebody else's, just misfortune.

LEMON: And the question is, how can they come up with an ending? Because the ending still has not been written.

Jeff Wise, what do you make of this film?

WISE: You know, and plus the fact, I mean, if it's already out, if they've already finished it, they must have started working on it, you know, a couple months ago.

LEMON: I don't think it's quite done. I think they worked on the trailer and the concept he started. It took him 20 days, he says, to write the screenplay.

WISE: Oh, well, you know, it's -- I agree with David, wholeheartedly. I mean, it seems tasteless. It seems baffling to me how you would even tell a story. Maybe they'll produce most of the movie and then wait for the ending to come out before they finish it. Who knows?

LEMON: He says that a Malaysian journalist gave him the idea here. Hey, David, this is for you, and I want to get this right. There's another theory that sounds -- this one is straight from a movie. In an op-ed, the former prime minister of Malaysia suggests Boeing and the CIA could have commandeered the plane remotely and then they hid it away.

He writes this, "Clearly, Boeing and certain agencies have the capacity to take over uninterruptable control of commercial airliners, of which MH-370 B777 is one."

And by the way, we should point out this is the same prime minister who suggested the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 attacks. But still, he's the former prime minister, suggesting that Boeing and CIA could be involved in this plane. Is that pretty astonishing to you?

SOUCIE: Yes, you know, Don, I worked on the Airbus 380 certification, and that's probably the most advanced aircraft out there right now. And so looking at the capabilities there, there was discussion about remotely controlling that aircraft. But -- and they probably do have the capability to install it in that aircraft. Maybe even the Dreamliner does, but I wasn't involved with that one. So yes, maybe it is possible to remotely control it.

But the purpose of that, the only purpose of that is after you have a 24-bit hex decimal system put in place to identify the aircraft, to communicate with the aircraft. And the purpose is, if the flight view crew is incapacitated for any reason, the only thing that's remote about it is it triggers a sequence within the airplane that automatically flies that airplane directly back to the place that it went to or to the alternate airport. There's no such thing as remotely controlling these airplanes, even in that high level of technology.

LEMON: Twenty-four bit hexadecimal. Layman's terms. Use layman's terms.

Jeff, I want to ask you this...

SOUCIE: Really smart.

LEMON: The former prime minister went on to say, Jeff. He says, "It -- it is a waste of time and money to look for debris or oil slick or listen to pings from the black box. The plane is somewhere. Maybe without MAS markings," the Malaysian Airlines markings. Has he joined the conspiracy theorists? Or do we need to re-entertain the possibility that terrorism, you think, could have played a role in this?

WISE: Honestly, there's been a lot of speculation on air, off air in the media, outside the media. And he's just another one of them. He happens to have gotten a lot of attention, because he is a former prime minister of Malaysia. But I wouldn't give him any more credence than anybody else.

LEMON: What does this show? What does this show. Does this show what we're working with here when it becomes that the former prime minister is saying something like this?

JAFFE: Well, you know, in a way I kind of feel bad for the Malaysians. They don't really have the advanced technology. They obviously made a huge mistake in not following this up. And the tragedy of this plane and not knowing where it was, it seems clear that they're trying to dissipate the burden that's being, you know, on them from the public pointing the figures at them. And I think we're smarter than that.

LEMON: I think the Google searches for 24-bit hexadecimal are going to go up exponentially after that comment from David Soucie.

When we come right back, the brother-in-law of Flight 370's captain speaks out, and we're going to check in with Naren again, whose wife was on the plane, right after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: There are many, many theories about what happened to Flight 370, and they point the finger at the plane's captain, and his family has had enough of this.

I'm back now with my experts. And joining us now on the phone is K.S. Narendran. His wife Chandrika Sharma was a passenger on board Malaysia Airlines Flight 370.

Thank you, Naren, for joining us again here. You have been really patient about this situation, and you've been waiting now for three months. What do you make of this new data coming out? Does this change anything for you?

NARENDRAN (via phone): I don't know. This new data coming and the Inmarsat data that the government has been willing to share right now. Is that correct?

LEMON: Yes, they're going to share the satellite data, Inmarsat is, from Flight 370.

NARENDRAN: All right. First of all I'd like to wait and see when this happens. I think the intentions have to be backed by actions. So I'd like to wait to see when that really happen.

Secondly is just one piece of the whole amount of data that has been used to conduct the search. So when sharing Inmarsat data by itself is important, I think it can be essential as time goes by for the larger set of data to also be made available.

LEMON: OK.

NARENDRAN: Otherwise, we are left to figure out the other parts from the parts that are revealed. And I think that's -- that's been partly the problem of our understanding of the situation, and that's what will continue to be, if it's opened up to the public at large.

LEMON: Naren, I have to jump in and ask you what you make of this movie coming out about -- that's in the works from Flight 370. NARENDRAN: My first response was that I was quite amused to hear that. But I was also asking myself why am I even surprised? First, it's a lawyers, who feed on greed, and then the filmmakers, who fuel the fantasy and then followed, I'm sure, by the insurers who -- for whom fear is important. So it's just a matter of time.

LEMON: Yes.

NARENDRAN: But I suppose the public is frustrated and there's a fair amount of fatigue. And what we need are facts and not fiction or fictionalized accounts.

LEMON: Right.

NARENDRAN: So I think it's a little poorly timed. It's a little too early, and I don't think it's in good taste.

LEMON: Naren, thank you. I appreciate you joining us here on CNN. You have joined us several times, and again, we're think about you.

I want to turn now again to my panel. First to David Soucie. David, we learned some new information today about the pilot of the plane. You know, his brother-in-law is saying that the captain, he was not suicidal, that he had no life insurance. Is the pilot the -- still the main suspect or should he be at this point?

SOUCIE: You know, in my mind there's no question that one of the two pilots was commanding the moves on that aircraft. I can't imagine any other way to do that.

Now, whether or not it was commanded by someone else, whether it was in an effort to make a heroic move to prevent some other catastrophe from happening, like the aircraft crashing into land, something like that, I wouldn't speculate as to what it was.

For sure, I wouldn't go to the suicide thought. For one reason -- we've been saying this all along -- is that when that aircraft made the turn it's right when they were transferring from one control area to another. That's the last time that one person would be alone in the cockpit, because it takes two people to make that transition. One is flying and one is navigating...

LEMON: OK.

SOUCIE: Excuse me. One is navigating and one is using the radio.

LEMON: I've got 15 seconds left here. Jules, I want to ask you this, because someone says this, Omar says, "Someday the truth about MH-370 will come to light, and it's probably stranger than fiction. You think that -- you think you know your government," responding to the former Malaysian prime minister. You think you know your government. What do you think?

JAFFE: Do I...

LEMON: Think again, that's what he says. JAFFE: Think about the Malaysian government and whether they know about it, you mean? It's hard to know. There's politics. There's compassion. There's science and engineering.

LEMON: Yes.

JAFFE: They don't always overlap.

LEMON: Thank you, guys.

Thank you, David.

Thank you, Jeff.

Thank you, Jules.

JAFFE: My pleasure.

LEMON: That's it for me. I'm Don Lemon. "AC 360" starts right now.