proximity, guided by radar, not the heat of the engines. a heat-seeker will go to the engine and you ll get exactly what david is talking about. but if it in fact exploded in proximity of the tail, you would not necessarily get a fire on the aircraft, but you certainly would lose control of the aircraft, it would break up in-flight. it would match everything we re seeing here. but going back to what david said, putting blinders on at this stage, is not a good idea at all. i think we have plenty of evidence right now on the ground, and there will be concrete evidence, to find out if the explosion happened internally, blew outward or broke up from something an external force. that kind of information will be there, will be available. one thing that s important, we should take a look at a 30-mile disk around where this happened and see if there are military installations there, see if there are buk missile launchers. they re mobile, but nevertheless, we have a lot of assets trained in t
delayed explosion that was implanted? no, i m talking about the warhead on the suspected missile, the alleged missile that would have hit this. it s 150 pounds and high explosion with fragmentation, and it s a radar proximity fuse. so would that give you the same kind of characteristic you were describing? well, certainly would. first of all, you re talking about implanting the head of that warhead missile into an aircraft flying at 32,000 feet flying at 480 knots. so it would have to have gotten into the aircraft and exploded later? is that what you re trying to say? if it impacts the aircraft at all in the air, then it would cause a fire on board that aircraft. there is no way it wouldn t. rick, you re saying you don t think that s necessarily the case. no, i m not explaining this correctly, i guess. no, what i m saying you must not be hearing. i m sorry, rick. go ahead and explain what you believe what might have happened with the missile. if this was the buk missile
on this one video, saying that because you don t see a smoke trail before the impact on the ground, you don t believe that the plane was in any way on fire or had been hit by any kind of a missile. yeah. if it had been let by a missile, you would see evidence of that in the air. colonel? this is rick francona. if i described the warhead to you, what we re looking at is 150 pounds of high explosion fragmentation warhead, proximity fused, would that change your opinion at all? i don t know what you re even talking about. why would that have anything to do with this? no. i m saying, if what struck the aircraft was a 150-pound warhead that was radar-fused to go off in the neighborhood of it, would that change your opinion? so you re saying, rather than a missile that actually struck the aircraft, and this is an actual device, you re saying you re talking about a
david soucie and miles o brien. you brought up an interesting point before president obama spoke and i think it s important to zero in on it more. i don t want to give it short shrift or let views think it s been given short shrift. you said this was not a missile but this plane came down for some other reasons. what do you base that on and does your opinion change at all with this new video we re seeing? no, it doesn t really, anderson. this new video shows, as richard quest pointed out to me, at an impact site, you can get debris flying 10,000 feet, 5, 10,000 feet up into the air, because of the actual explosion itself. so it s not uncommon to have debris this close to when the accident happened falling from the sky. any debris that would have happened when the aircraft came down would have closely followed the aircraft and wouldn t be located at this point, because of the fact the aircraft is moving at 480 miles per hour, so
three-and-a-half months of this conflict flying over that region. again, just something that really internationally there hadn t been given too much thought to, other than the faa, which had stopped u.s. planes from flying over crimea. and the europeans. the europeans, along with the faa, they had stopped people flying or aircraft flying over crimea and the black sea because that a potential battle after the referendum. we re talking three months ago. right. but this further area north, no one had quite grasped the severity of this and the pilots i ve been speaking to this morning say they have been concerned for some time flying over ukraine knowing there was a real risk of something happening in that area. in terms of what happens now, well, this area will be avoided by airlines. we re already seeing that left, right and center. but it wasn t part, anderson this wasn t part of the current