Report: Flight 370's flight path changed by cockpit computer

This is a rush transcript from "The Five," March 18, 2014. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

ERIC BOLLING, CO-HOST: This is a FOX News alert.

We're 11 days into the mystery that has gripped the world. The investigation into Flight 370 is changing by the minute.

And Catherine Herridge has been following it all. She joins us now from Washington with the very latest -- Catherine.


Today, Malaysian authorities tried to play down "The New York Times" report that flight 370's turn westward 40 minutes into the flight was programmed into the cockpit computer, re-enforcing the theory that the jet was redirected by the pilots or by one or more individuals with specific flight experience.


AHMAD JAUHARI YAHYA, MALAYSIA AIRLINES CEO: This is standard procedure. The aircraft was scheduled to fly to Beijing.

REPORTER: It was reported in "The New York Times" today --

YAHYA: It could be speculation. It is -- once you're in the aircraft, anything is possible.


HERRIDGE: Also, the Malaysian media is reporting that a half dozen remote landing strips were found on the 53-year-old pilot's flight simulator recovered from his home in suburban Kuala Lumpur. The reported landing sites preprogrammed into that simulator are said to include strips in the Indian Ocean, the Maldives, Sri Lanka, and the U.S. base Diego Garcia.

And at the White House briefing today, the suggestion that the plane could be on U.S. territory was dismissed outright.


REPORTER: Some news reports are saying that the missing flight could have landed in the U.S. Diego Garcia in the center of the Indian Ocean, do you rule in that or rule out that?



HERRIDGE: Also, U.S. investigators, including the NTSB and FAA, are engaged in a second intense review of the signals data's sources, tell FOX News to try to zero in on the missing jet's path as the search enters it 11th day, Eric.

BOLLING: Catherine, there have been of theories going around, some are alarming terror plots. Some are absurd. Literally, I heard on CNN, an alien abduction may have caused this plane. One that seems to be floating around today and very popular is the possibility of an onboard electrical fire, catastrophic, that would take out the transponder and the ACAR system and then maybe have the pilots in a rush make a quick turn.

Do you have any more information on that, whether that's a credible possibility?

HERRIDGE: Well, the issue that I have heard consistently from my contacts that I have been talking to throughout the day is there was a fire in the circuit board, the likelihood that the jet would continue to fly for that eight-hour period when that satellite data link was still intact and still sending signals, a kind of "I'm here signal' without data, seems unlikely or at least remote to investigators at this point. But they're pursuing all of these options.

And also, when you look at the sequence of events, it has that very deliberate feel, if you will, based on the ACARS system, this is the maintenance system, going dark, and then the transponder going dark as well, Eric.

ANDREA TANTAROS, CO-HOST: Hey, Catherine, it's Andrea Tantaros.

HERRIDGE: Hi, Andrea.

TANTAROS: Who played the message that they received, that the data was changed through ACARS? Who specifically was that? Do we know that that came from a dispatcher, was it ACARS, where did we get this information that everybody is talking about today?

HERRIDGE: Well, there are a couple of points here. The ACARS system for a layperson, this is a maintenance system that's onboard most of these Boeing flights. Boeing offers an upgraded system, but the basic system is an ACARS system that pulses out kind of an overall picture on the health of the aircraft about every half an hour.

In this particular case, "The New York Times" was reporting that this was shut down, if you will, and then also in the pilot control panel, what was programmed into that was a flight change. Sort of a code, if you will, indicating that it was moving along that flight path.

I have spoken to someone who is familiar with the investigation today who seemed to raise questions about that data, saying that that kind of hard turn is something that is not easy to do on auto pilot, which is how it would go if you were programming that data into the console. They said it seemed more consistent with making a manual turn with the aircraft.

TANTAROS: How do we know specifically it was in fact changed?

HERRIDGE: The computer coding, is that what you're saying into the console?

TANTAROS: Yes, yes.

HERRIDGE: Well, that's based on "The New York Times" sourcing that this would have been programmed and then transmitted from the aircraft. That's what they're reporting.


BOB BECKEL, CO-HOST: Catherine, this is Bob Beckel. One thing that seems to me we have to be firm about or is there, are you firm about it? In fact, this plane did fly for five hours or six hours or whatever, based on a satellite print. Now, do we know whether the satellite picked up this particular plane, or did it pick up any plan that happened to be large?

HERRIDGE: That's an excellent question. The information that we have, bob, is that that satellite link-up, if you will, they call it almost like a handshake in the sky. It's a way for the system on the jet to reset and for the satellite to set, you know, the right tilt as the flight progresses along its path so that the two can continue to connect.

In this particular case, based on the tracking data, because it was once an hour, they believe it was the same aircraft and it continued to transmit for an eight-hour period. That's why when you look at these two corridors they're searching, you've got that northern corridor that goes up into Kazakhstan, and then the southern corridor, which seems to be the emphasis by U.S. investigators.

GREG GUTFELD, CO-HOST: Hey, Catherine, we're getting all of these theories, all this speculation. Has American intelligence gotten more involved in the investigation?

HERRIDGE: They certainly have in the last 11 days. It seems now clear to me, based on a conversation this afternoon, the U.S. investigators are taking this very intense second look at the signal's intelligence. So, that would be the satellite data link information that Bob was just asking about and then the civilian and military radar.

And what I've heard consistently is that the U.S. intelligence community has other ways or other avenues to try and get sort of a fix from the sky on what the likely trajectory of that aircraft was. And that would be something going into sources and methods that they're not discussing.

The bottom line for people in the intelligence community is whatever the catalyst for this missing flight, this in some ways is almost like a blueprint or could be seen as a trial run in terms of the ease with which the flight was taken over, and one of the concerns we have heard this week, but it's certainly been a post-9/11 concern, is that they would take a jet and use this in effect as a weapon of mass destruction by loading it with certain cargo.

DANA PERINO, CO-HOST: Catherine, it's Dana. I have two basic questions.

One is about when you started your report, you talked about the Malaysian media providing the latest information. I'm curious if you're finding those sources to be credible or if you're needing to check them with somebody else? In addition, I wondered about this idea of in a post- 9/11 world, having imagination enough to think about what might have happened to this plane. We're not being crazy thinking they might have been able to take it and use it later?

HERRIDGE: Well, I'll take the second question first. It's a great question, Dana.

One of the things that I heard in my reporting today is that so far, there is no evidence that the plane went down. And this is perhaps one of the most disturbing facts for investigators because at this point in time, they would expect to see some kind of wreckage, and this goes to the theory that the jet may have been placed down at some location that is unknown. That's not for certain. But that's certainly something that is still on the table.

When you look at the larger question of whether this is some kind of blueprint for terrorists, this is still very much on the mind of investigators, because it has that kind of feel to it, because it was so efficient in the way that the plane disappeared. And one point that I think has not had a lot of emphasis which is important, is that this westward turn by the jet was made as it was transitioning between two different air traffic controls, and this is kind of a no man's land where any kind of flight irregularity would not be so easily picked up. That does not seem by coincidence, either.

BOLLING: All right. We're going to leave it there. Catherine Herridge, thank you very much for the excellent reporting.

HERRIDGE: Thanks for having me.

BOLLING: Thank you.

So, can I bring something else out that came out today, later on this afternoon? Maybe earlier in the day, I guess. The Thai military is now, today, 11 days out, confirmed two pings that they've got. They've got one at 1:28, which is after the transponder was turned off and they have another one at 6:15, which is five hours later.

Anyone want to speculate on why in the heck the Thai military would wait 11 days to say they confirmed this actual important turn on the airplane and why we wasted 11 days searching for the plane?

PERINO: They said it was because they weren't asked the specific question.


GUTFELD: This goes back to understanding why America is different. We constantly are in this process of playing down our exceptionalism. We realize that American investigators are superior. And that we actually have to have the guts to say, we're better than you are. Let us take over, or this is never going to end.

But we don't appreciate our expertise enough or have the guts to say that, I guess.

BOLLING: But Dana is right. They specifically said they weren't specifically asked. Are you kidding? They're watching it on every single media outlet on the planet. And they figure, oh, we're going to sit on this. So, 11 days out, we'll let them know about this blip.

BECKEL: Keep in mind, this is a military radar. First of all, it's not their responsibility to worry about commercial airlines. And secondly, there's probably -- can you imagine how many radar hits there are in the course of three or four days, at any military installation? Millions.

PERINO: I can't imagine the neighbor of a country not providing information about a possible murder of 239 people.

BECKEL: Well, I'm not trying to make excuses for the Thais, I just think it's probably for us to start -- every time somebody comes up with pieces of information, why didn't you tell us that day one? Well --

BOLLING: Bob, you know --

TANTAROS: You would think that they would be a little more vocal.

BOLLING: People are searching for this airplane, wasting a heck of a lot of time. If they can confirm that left turn, you can certainly start to look at the --


BECKEL: The problem is, we've got the NSA has certainly intercepted phone calls all over Malaysia, on going.


TANTAROS: It goes back to how much you can trust not just the third- world air carriers but the third-world countries that are coming out giving you information. So, today's news is really big -- the news about actually changing of the route. The reason why I pressed, Catherine, is because we only have "The New York Times" sources saying that they changed the route through ACARS.

Who are those sources? Who talked to "The New York Times"? Was it the Malaysian airlines? Was it the Malaysian government? Was the dispatchers at ACARS doing that? We don't know how we had the information.

But what happened is two pilots sitting at the gate, and we don't know if they changed it at the gate or on the plane, but for two pilots to change that route, Eric, at the gate would mean that the pilots had to be in on it.

ACARS sends the pilots the route. They sit at the gate, they confirm it, it's usually completely on point. So, in order for them to change it at the gate, they would have had to both be in on it. If they changed it in the sky, one pilot could have, you know, been pressed.

BOLLING: Gone to the men's room.

TANTAROS: Gone to the men's room, like the Egypt flight in 1999. But it makes you think it has to be one of three things. Either if it's a hijacking situation, the hijacker did not know enough to tell them to turn the transponder off, right? And maybe the pilots left it on, hopefully to stay in contact. Or they left it on or they were sloppy, if these pilots were the ones hijacking, maybe they forgot and they left the transponder on.

PERINO: I have a point about the response. You know, we talked this week about why there's -- if it was terrorism, there's been no claim of responsibility. Remember, in a lead-up, in the planning to the attacks on 9/11, they didn't pre-claim responsibility if they were planning something bigger later, which is why I think that our Homeland Security and intelligence officials are right to just put everything out on the table as a possibility, because maybe there is not yet responsibility to be claimed.

BECKEL: Let me push back --

BOLLING: More to come, you mean something bigger to come?


BECKEL: Let me push back on your pushback. The NSA does not just concentrate on terrorists?

BOLLING: I was kidding, Bob. There was news that the NSA can literally go back and listen to phone calls of a whole country.

BECKEL: That's my point. Yes. So there's probably somewhere in there, some information. I mean, we jump on the Thais, we jump on the rest of them, we say we're exceptional about this thing. There's probably a lot of information that the United States has that is not yet out.

GUTFELD: Well, the bottom line is speculation is just sausage -- sorry, speculation is ignorance in lingerie and it's turning us into sausage machines. We're sitting here every day, we're giving this stuff, and we ingest it, and we spit out these links of speculation, and we don't know anything.

TANTAROS: Are you imagining Bob in lingerie?

GUTFELD: I always do. I have a poster.

BOLLING: Because this is like James Bond meets, you know, CBS "48 Hours Mystery" meets --

TANTAROS: "The Bourne Identity."

BOLLING: Yes, all of them wrapped up in one. We're just looking for the answers. Incredible how much --


TANTAROS: You can start to figure out little things. So, for example, we know for a fact that they changed the course. We don't know when they changed it, but we know they did change it. If you're trying to crash an airplane, you don't need to change the waypoints. You crash it into the ground.

That means that plane is heading somewhere specifically. It was at night, and if they were going to land somewhere in one of those maybe remote islands, which is what I mentioned on Thursday, they needed those specific waypoints at night to do it.

BOLLING: On the glass half full side of that, maybe the pilots were doing, because they were really trying to land the plane safely.

TANTAROS: Perhaps.

BOLLING: We're going to leave there. More to come on the missing plane during this hour.

But next, Russia laughs off President Obama as a prankster after getting ahold of his so-called list of consequences. How this -- how is the world supposed to take this president seriously when he's preoccupied with comedy skits, when "The Five" returns.


GUTFELD: Thought we could use something positive.

With chaos in Venezuela, Ukraine, and that missing plane, we have seen the emergence of a powerful leader -- the man who knows his strengths, his allies and how to exploit them both. He's ruthless when he wants to be. I'm referring to our first ever president of pop culture, Barack Obama.

Casually aloof and too cool to be overly concerned, he glides from famous face to famous face, getting him to back his health care crusade. Low key and laid back, he's the coolest professor ever.

This is what America elected, so this is what we get -- a huge success not on the world stage, but on a sound stage, between two ferns, his only ObamaCare win.

Yes, a president so cool he has a product named after him. And now, more celebs are selling that product, as he talks jeans with Ryan Seacrest.

This is the stuff Putin only dreamed he could do if he wasn't busy expanding an empire, instead of neglecting one.

And so, we return to two old elections, one with a war hero, a crusty senator named John McCain, couldn't vote for him. He's just not cool.

Then there was Mitt, governor, businessman, a Mormon who warned us about Russia. No vote for him, just not cool.

So, America voted cool and we got it. A man too detached to deal with old-school bad guys because it's just so 1980s. Enlisting pop stars to sell his domestic wares, he forgot there's a world out there spinning around, bummer, that it's harshing his buzz.

But, you know, OK, Eric, they're calling him a prankster in Russia. They're calling him a prankster. Is that kind of a compliment?

BOLLING: No, I think they're rubbing his nose in it. The fact that he said you better not do that, you better not do that or else, and then they did it. He said we're going to slap sanctions on the Russians. They're going, that's it? That's --

GUTFELD: Seven, what, seven of them, seven people?


GUTFELD: Eleven.

BOLLING: It's 11, but whatever, who cares? Bottom line is, and then they turn around and say, don't mess with us. Keep pushing us.

I agree with them. I agree that we've got to stop pushing Putin and Russia's buttons right now. Let them figure out what they're doing over there, because you're going to wake the sleeping giant. Can you imagine just for one minute if NATO has countries like Albania -- they have literally the whole eastern part of Russia as part of NATO, all the countries that used to be satellite countries in Russia and some of the other Soviet bloc are now NATO members.

If they were doing that, I don't know, Canada, Mexico, Russia was doing it, we'd be losing our mind. What are you up to? Let them figure out what they have going on in Ukraine.

BECKEL: That's a good point, whether you're cool or not, you have to raise the point, would you have wanted John McCain. Are you saying now in retrospect, it would have been better to have Mitt Romney or John McCain as president? I don't think so. But the point is --

GUTFELD: I disagree, but go ahead.

BECKEL: OK. The point is you made a good point. If we were taking over part of Mexico and everybody says the president is not showing strength, we're not doing military -- what would the Russians do? They do absolutely nothing. They might send a boat, a couple of boats into the Gulf of Mexico. They couldn't do anything about it.

GUTFELD: Then maybe we should.

BECKEL: No, it's the same thing. I'm not sure you want that. You have to ask yourself a hard question about that.

But I'm not so sure that I understand here what -- I mean, I have to just concede that he has gotten the Crimean peninsula and it's going to stay there. He's not going to give it up. There's no way to force him to give it up, any more than there would be a way for us to give up two states in New Mexico -- Mexico, rather.

GUTFELD: Dana, you've got a look.

PERINO: I have taken some cold medicine today, and I may be a little out of it, but I didn't think I was living on another planet. I don't see how the United States can be so careless about other people's borders. The reason NATO did expand was to prevent Russian aggression.

And I'm not willing to be that careless with them. I respect other people's opinions, but I think that we're in for a lot more of this.

BECKEL: This goes back to the fundamental question, Dana, what do you do about it? After all is said and done, we've got to respect people's borders. The question is, what is the people who are jumping on Obama suggest we do?

PERINO: Actually --

TANTAROS: A strong president could come out and a strong president should say that Russia is showing new aggressiveness and the U.S. is now going to provide a missile defense to Eastern Europe.

BECKEL: That would make them move out of Crimea right there.

TANTAROS: The problem is, Bob, this president came out and said we didn't need a missile defense agreement because the purpose for them was for Iran, who President Obama said is not a threat. So, he could come out and he could say missile defense in Eastern Europe, much like President Reagan did when he put immediate nuke range missiles to counter the Russians.

However, he has not done that, OK? And there is a crisis today at the White House that he has to deal with, Greg. They lost a pastry chef, so this is really important, and he will get to Russia when he has more time and he figures out what's going on with the croissants.

PERINO: I also think it's remarkable how -- President Obama is the commander in chief, he's the leader of the free world. The president of the United States is the one who sets the foreign policy of the United States.

If there are people who are offering other suggestions like Steve Hadley and David Wilson, Max Boot, Condi Rice, just off the top of my head, things I have read in the past week, he could take those, but he doesn't have to do anything with them. But it shouldn't be the opposition's responsibility to come up with a foreign policy for him. The president wants to lead, just tell us where we're supposed to go.

BECKEL: Putin and the Crimea is not a foreign policy of the United States. It's a foreign policy decision of Russia.


PERINO: Is it incredible, Bob, that you take a different position on every issue depending on what it is?

BECKEL: What are you talking about?

PERINO: You would never have said that about Crimea before. How could you possibly say it has nothing to do with us? With the international community? Do you believe there's no international rule of law?

BECKEL: There's nothing you can do about it. They have no idea what they're talking about.

PERINO: That's baloney. You think --

BECKEL: What would they do? What would Condi Rice do to get Crimea back?

PERINO: Did you not read anything that was written over the weekend. I spent my whole time reading about it so I could talk about here.

BECKEL: So, she has an answer? Does she have any answer?

PERINO: Of course, she does.

Bob --

BECKEL: Deep breath.


PERINO: I lost my voice. I don't understand it. I actually don't understand it.

TANTAROS: How can you actually defend the administration's actions on this, right? They come out, they make a threat. Then yesterday, Secretary Kerry comes back and says we're not really threatening you.

GUTFELD: Nothing personal.

TANTAROS: Nothing personal. We just want you to know, if you're going to have some guts, do it behind the scenes. If they don't follow through, rather than get into a game of chicken with Putin, because that's what it is, it's about saving --

PERINO: He's not defending the president. I'm actually defending the president.

BOLLING: And that is the president, is that he decided to get involved in the first place. Rather than just stay -- maybe I'm just reading and following too many libertarians right now, but I really ascribe to this. It's not our war, it's not our problem, not our conflict.

PERINO: Who do you think expanded NATO? Why did Reagan want to expand NATO? To avoid Russian aggression.

BOLLING: With NATO to avoid Russian bringing back the old Soviet bloc back together. I understand why they did it.

PERINO: So then why now all of a sudden do we not have any responsibility?

BOLLING: Because they're not in NATO. Ukraine is not in NATO.

PERINO: But they could have been. That was actually a suggestion.

TANTAROS: But if they would have joined NATO, we would have a war treaty to go to war with Russia.

PERINO: But we have a responsibility, in the 1994 agreement with them.

GUTFELD: They gave us their weapons.

BOLLING: The wildest part of this, just giving up the weapons part, the 1994 agreement. Do you know what it was based on? Dick Lugar and Barack Obama going to Ukraine and saying, take down your military stocks and we'll do some sort of deal with you.


GUTFELD: Exchange for cooperation.

TANTAROS: Obama in '94?

BECKEL: The only legitimate way to get this stopped is to use military action of some kind.

PERINO: That's not the case.

BECKEL: You can't talk them out of it.

GUTFELD: We have created a grad student climate where we have retreated from the world which allows this to happen and it's too late, Bob. In a way, you're right, it might be too late, but it wouldn't have been too late if you had a leader that didn't ascribe to this, you know what, let's work on ourselves, let's work on the United States. We retreated from the world. That allowed --

BECKEL: Are you suggesting that Mitt Romney was president, they wouldn't take the Crimea right now?

TANTAROS: And now, the question is, is he going to go further?


GUTFELD: He talked about Russia.

BECKEL: He talked about it, sure --

PERINO: And you mocked him.

BECKEL: You think for a minute he wouldn't be in Crimea now if Mitt Romney weren't president?

TANTAROS: Bob, he's going to go further than Crimea. That's the fear, that is the worry, and the ultimate goal. If you're going to lay consequences down, then follow through. Freeze Russian assets. Shut them out of our markets, get the E.U. to do the same thing, or do what Eric said and don't open your mouth.

BOLLING: But I think you're hitting on something important, get the E.U. to do it. Let the E.U. do it.


PERINO: You know why they can't? Because they're consumed with their own domestic politics to pay for their socialized medicine that they can't afford.

GUTFELD: Yes. And also, we're just no longer dependable. If we made these promises to Ukraine because they believed in us, we're not there.

PERINO: Or how about the rebels in Syria?

GUTFELD: All right --

PERINO: We could make a list. Venezuela. Want to go around the world?


OK, we're going to stop there.

Coming up, could ObamaCare cost Democrats control of the Senate in November? Some Democrats are definitely concerned about it when "The Five" returns.


TANTAROS: Last week's special election in Florida's 13th district sent shock waves through the electoral landscape, highlighting the main hurdle that the Democrats face this November. ObamaCare coupled with the president's struggling approval and the chances of the GOP gaining a majority in the Senate seems to increase daily. The debate rages with plenty of voices now offering their take on what Obama signature legislation means to the 2014 midterms.


CAROLYN RYAN: One Democrat and our reporters found that Obama has become poison. I think that's in the liability column.

KARL ROVE, FORMER BUSH WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL: Fourteen seats in play on the Democratic side and a couple seats in play potentially on the Republican side. I think it's highly likely that the Republicans pick up a majority.

ROBERT GIBBS, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: There's real, real danger the Democrats could suffer big losses because the real state and turf in which these elections are taking place begin with an advantage to the Republicans. If you lose the Senate, turn out the lights because the party is over.

REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (D), FLORIDA: I am confident that we're going to hold the Senate.


TANTAROS: What is she going to say? Bob, you expressed some nervousness during the commercial break?

BECKEL: Yes, sure. I mean, the nerves -- I mean, if I had to bet my kid's college fund, I don't know if I bet the Republicans take it.

Look, you've got three open seats in Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia, those are states that are not -- where you had popular Democratic incumbents who have left, both left off (ph0, Rockefeller and Baucus in Montana. Beyond that, you've got three legacy Democrats running in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Colorado. That is Udall, Pryor and Landrieu.

So, you've got these seats are -- and yes, another piece of the puzzle that makes more sense to me, is they haven't nominated -- I want to say the word jerk, I won't say that way -- idiots to be their nominees like they did the last couple times. The Democrats should have had the Senate taken away from them, but the Tea Party nominated these whackos who couldn't win. Now, this time around, so far, they haven't nominated any whackos.

So, you put that together, you say it's got to be a pretty good sign for the Republicans.

TANTAROS: Eric, speaking of whackos, Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, these are Democrats that have actually come out and encouraged these vulnerable Dems who are in these vulnerable states to run on ObamaCare. What's the likelihood of that?

BOLLING: I think they're foolish and Mary Landrieu showed she's not going to do that. She's pushing back as far back -- in Louisiana, as far back from ObamaCare and President Obama as she possibly can. Alaska, Mark Begich, Pryor, you mentioned in Arkansas is in trouble. Kay Hagan, Udall, Al Franken, there's a very good chance the Republicans take the Senate because of those.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz had a back and forth with Reince Priebus. And Reince I don't understand -- listen, he's a great guy. I understand what he's doing, but you have this thing. This thing is within reach. Don't get sucked in with this B.S. going on with them.

Don't let them -- don't play their game. Republicans, play your own game. Stay on ObamaCare and win the Senate back, and all things will open up going forward.

PERINO: I agree. He should not be on Twitter. There's no need for it. Just focus and win like they did in Florida.

I think a couple things about Wassermann Schultz and Pelosi. So, they're trying to turn their greatest liability into some sort of asset, and that's ObamaCare, and President Obama himself. One thing about those two, they're very loyal to President Obama and they are trying to make ObamaCare work, do the best they can. But I think his numbers aren't likely to get any better.

Two other states I want to mention. In Minnesota and Oregon, where you think there's no chance a Republican could win, Republican opponents there are actually closer in their races to the Democrats than Republicans are in West Virginia and South Dakota. So I think that's why somebody like a Cory Gardner decided to get in in Colorado, Scott Brown in New Hampshire, they think things are rolling in their favor.

TANTAROS: Greg, new ObamaCare enrollment numbers out, saying there are 5 million enrollees, which is well below their goal, but still we don't know how many people have paid. It looks like one in 10, according to the insurance companies, already had coverage. So, that goal of getting everyone covered is not really being reached.

So, is there even a bill at this point? They have changed it so many times, it seems with all the pushbacks and delays, the essential bill that was this big is really no more.

GUTFELD: Yes, there's a Joan Rivers of bills. There's so much surgery.

You know, it's funny. You know, when you hear about pyramid schemes, the only way to make the money is if you enlist other people to come in, and that take said the pressure off. That's what ObamaCare is right now for people like Pelosi and Wassermann Schultz. They've got to get other people in or else the whole pyramid falls apart. They're the Amway of government programs.

BECKEL: They're likely to meet 6 million.

GUTFELD: One percent.

BECKEL: And, by the way, McKinsey and Company did a study, finally got it straightened out. Of those 6 million people who didn't have insurance policy said, they got canceled, only half a million now don't have policies.

GUTFELD: Oh, that's not true.

BECKEL: What do you mean it's not true? You can't just say that, and say it's not true. They said it, I didn't say it?


GUTFELD: McKinsey? Oh, boy. That changes my mind.

Never underestimate the ability of the media to help the Democrats win. So you have the media right now saying, oh, the Republicans are going to win, but remember, the reps is on their team. The media, when it comes down to it, will help the Democrats get their seats.

TANTAROS: That's right, but the money is flowing on the right.


TANTAROS: Which they're going to have to face.

All right. Next, new details on the search for the missing Malaysian airplane. Stay with us.


PERINO: Back now to the missing plane investigation. FOX's William La Jeunesse has an update with us on the search -- William.

WILLIAM LA JEUNESSE, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know a lot still doesn't make sense. If this was a pilot suicide, why not crash the plane immediately? If there was a cockpit breach, why no emergency signal? If it was a fire, why no mayday?

Well, today's information suggests a deliberate act by the pilot. Here's why -- the plan's original flight plan took it north to Beijing. About 40 minutes into the flight, the plane suddenly turned west. Why?

Well, today's "New York Times" says whoever changed the flight path did so by typing into the plane's computer or GPS, rather than turning the plane manually. The airline said this auto pilot computer was already preprogrammed for Beijing, meaning those new coordinates were inputted during flight, suggesting a pilot did it, not someone inexperienced who entered the cockpit.

Also new information about when this happened.

After takeoff, things looked fine. The copilots says, "all right, good night," and Thai military see the plane headed north around 1:22. But just about then, a minute earlier, the transponder, which allows radar to identify the plane, the speed, the direction, the altitude, it stops. Six minutes later, Thai officials say 370 turned west.

At 1:37, a second computer stops transmitting. At 2:00 a.m., the plane disappeared from Malaysian radar. Six hours later, it disappeared off radar all together.

Renewed focus now on the pilots, their political believes, their psychology, their motive. Malaysian officials, however, said they found nothing suspicious on the pilot's home flight simulator or e-mail. Now, some believe an electrical fire maybe disabled the communication. Pilots punched into those new coordinates, for a new airport, but they died from the smoke. No one could get inside and the plane crashed hours later. That's the theory.

Some fishermen in the Maldives do report seeing a jet with red stripes. Others say, no way, that they would get out a distress signal before they were overcome. The point is at this point, nothing has been ruled out -- Dana.

PERINO: Go ahead, Eric.

BOLLING: William, a couple things that we have been talking about. Yesterday or Friday, I believe it was, "New York Times" reported that the plane actually rose to 45,000 feet and then down to 5,000, based on sources. And then today, we heard that this data input in the cockpit on the flight path was input from "The New York Times" based on sources.

Do we know who the sources are? If the sources have this information, why don't they have more information, and do they have more information?

LA JEUNESSE: Well, there's a real frustration right now with the Malaysian flight officials. Information is coming out into the Malaysian media. There's a lot of different stories. The point is they have not been cooperative. We have been frustrated with their lack of transparency.

And no one is authorized to generally speak except the minister, and they are not saying much at all. So, therefore, we're getting a lot of conflicting information, and that's just the way it is -- Eric.

BECKEL: Hey, William. This is Bob Beckel. I asked Catherine Herridge this question, and let me ask you.

How certain are we, because this is big part of this, that we have satellite imagery that has this plane flying for five, six, seven, eight hours after this turn, somewhere. Do we -- do we have absolute confidence that satellite was picking up this particular plane or a plane that was a 777, or is that also speculation?

LA JEUNESSE: There's some speculation there, you're right. The skies are crowded. There was only one of the reasons we have a problem here that we haven't got a better direction in this area that is 3 million miles if we were looking at is because there was only one satellite at that point, we didn't triangulate.

But this is a particular plane that was well outside the flight path, that wasn't matching any other of the transponders, if you will, and they've isolated this plane basically in the middle of the Indian Ocean. And that's the best they've got at this point, Bob.


TANTAROS: Hey, William, it's Andrea. These pilots had to be going somewhere specifically in order for them to change the waypoints, right? They couldn't have not just flown the plane without any kind of numbers directing them or any kind of flight plan, because it was dark, it was in the evening.

My question is, and I asked Katherine, how do we know who has told us the information about the route change that we got from ACARS? And did they see that the route was actually changed or did they notice it coincidentally the waypoints were changed? Do we know that information?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, we know that the airline says that it was preprogrammed for Beijing, and during the flight, according to the airline, and you put this together, that they put in those new GPS coordinates. So instead of going to your mom's house, you get on there and go to the Circle K first. That was done in flight, if you will, and that is somewhat consistent with that turn to the left, if you will.

In terms of the sources of this information, you have every right to be suspicious of it, because very few people are speaking on the record, forcing us to kind of piece this stuff together as best we can.

PERINO: All right, thank you, William, so much.

Still ahead, is political correctness getting in the way of the missing plane investigation? We'll talk about that when "The Five" returns.



BECKEL: Boy, that's a song (ph).

OK, is political correctness getting in the way of the missing plane investigation? Let me say -- jump to this very quickly. You have two pilots, a pilot and copilot, both of who were Muslims, neither of whom have been attached to any radical Islamic groups so far.

However, given the climate that we're living in, the terror -- the climate of terrorism, and given this part of the world where this took place, it seemed to me to take a long time for them to begin to look into the backgrounds or whenever they have any political radicalization in their backgrounds. Now, maybe this is because people say I always jump on the Muslims, but it would have been the first thing I would have asked.

Eric, what do you think?

BOLLING: I think you have to -- before we make the leap, we have to do our homework; we have to investigate. And by the way, there's a good chance a substantial population of the cabin, passengers, are Muslim, as well. So you have to go through. You have to find out who has political ties. Extremist ties.

Let's be clear. There's a political tie with the copilot. The copilot's brother was a political activist or is a political activist in Malaysia. I'm not sure that it would have a darn thing to do with it, but I certainly think, you know, this is going to be a while before this plane. There's going to be plenty of time to investigate these ties, if there are any.

BECKEL: Dana, don't you think if that -- if investigating that might be -- in fact, they were, it seems to me that would take you into a whole different direction of your investigation, right?

PERINO: Because remember, we're in day 11, and last Friday, which would have been day 7 on the show, we talked about where are the dossiers about the pilots? Because I don't think it's prejudiced. It's just common sense in the world that we live in that you would have checked into the backgrounds. Maybe there's nothing there, but it does beg the question whether or not we soft-pedaled it up to now.

BECKEL: That's a good point. Why not check into it when you're beginning this investigation?

TANTAROS: Well, the investigation was led off by the Malaysians, who I think we can pretty much say with absolute certainty now have been wrong a lot in their information.

If you look back to 1999 when Egypt Air crashed, remember what the Egyptians told us? Oh, it was a mechanical failure, when in fact, the pilot had yelled "Allah akbar" before he crashed the plane into the ground. Now, there were a lot of Americans on the flight.

But why didn't we also know that this pilot had this makeshift simulator in his home? Most pilots say that's a little strange to do. It's not like they're practicing landing and courses on their weekends. They don't do that. But we're getting this information because the Malaysians aren't being candid with us.

BECKEL: Greg, you're associated with radical Islamist movements. Do you think that there's anything here that we could have looked into earlier?

GUTFELD: We have to be better than this. Because when -- when there was the Boston bombing, you had people alluded that it was the Tea Party because it was on April 15. You had jerks on the left who were saying they were hoping it was a white supremacist group.

I didn't even know these guys were Muslim, to be honest. And I don't -- I think this points to a frustration at the lack of transparency and why Americans -- the American intelligence should be taking charge of this. But I just don't -- I don't feel comfortable saying, "It's Muslims," because I don't like it when they do it to the Tea Party. I don't like it when they do it to Sarah Palin.

BOLLING: Solid (ph) point.

GUTFELD: You know what I mean?

PERINO: You're making a commonsense point.

GUTFELD: Yes, I know, but I guess it's just...

BECKEL: "One More Thing" is up next.


BOLLING: All right. It's time for "One More Thing." I'm going to kick it off.

Show a picture of this mosque. Take a look, guys. This is the Dar el Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Virginia. You know why that rings a bell? Because that's where Anwar al-Awlaki was an imam in 2001 and '02. Major Nidal Hasan also worshipped there, also 9/11 hijackers. So that's what that mosque is all about.

Well, we found out this week that the Virginia state legislature has passed Resolution 484 commending this mosque, and let me read it very quickly. Commends this mosque as an expression of the general assembly's admiration for the center's commitment to serving the Northern Virginia Muslim community. You just can't make this stuff up, folks.

TANTAROS: OK. Today at the White House, if you were watching, 24 were honored, getting the Medal of Honor. Three of them are living. That was the footage from today at the White House. And this is unique because it actually spanned back to the Vietnam War, even back to World War II. A lot of these veterans were honored today in the highest honor, and Bob, you said there was some controversy around Vietnam.

BECKEL: Yes, they didn't award Vietnam veterans the Medal of Honor until very much later, because it was such a controversial war.

BOLLING: We'll move on. Dana, you're up.

PERINO: That was a great event. I liked watching that on Shep's show.

OK. You might have heard Greg Gutfeld's book, "Not Cool," coming out today. It's in stores. We went to an event last night. It was very fun.

And you write about free radicals.


PERINO: And one of them was Roger Ailes, who's our boss. Let me just read what you wrote about him: "He's not in this book because he's my boss. He's in here because he suffers for his work and refuses to waver. The more you attack, the more he presses on. Vitriol from adversaries becomes a fuel. The mark of a true rebel, and one who understands the fragility of freedom more than most of his critics are willing to admit."

GUTFELD: Very good, very good. Free radicals are people who are truly cool, not the artificial cool.

BOLLING: Bob, you're up.

BECKEL: OK. There's a study at the University of New Hampshire that says if you have positive memories of exercise, you're bound to exercise more. Well, here, I started an exercise routine because I started to lose some weight. And you know what happened to me? Here's my positive memory. I got back from the doctor's. I ripped a muscle in my leg, and I'll be out of the exercise business for two months -- or for two weeks, rather. And so I guess that is not exactly positive.

GUTFELD: I actually -- I feel bad, because I'm the one that has been pushing you to exercise.

BECKEL: Yes, correct, it's your fault.

TANTAROS: Don't worry. He loves that he's injured now.


GUTFELD: Do I have time to do it? I hate these people.


GUTFELD: I hate these people!


GUTFELD: All right. Yesterday was St. Patrick's Day. I'm on the subway. Guy is bragging about how drunk he got, how he fell down and got sick. He was in his mid-30s. You don't do that. You're done with getting drunk when you're 25.

BOLLING: We've got to go. We'll see you tomorrow, everybody.

Content and Programming Copyright 2014 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2014 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.