The Navy is now confirming to NBC News that in fact on Sunday when that sub went
in the water and as you know, they lost communication an hour and 45 minutes down.
The Navy says at about that same time it detected through its underwater acoustic
listening devices sounds consistent with an implosion or an explosion.
That would suggest in fact that this implosion, if in fact it was an implosion
of the hull all at once, it happened within the first few hours.
In fact, the first hour and a half were hour and 45 minutes of the descent.
>> So of course that's one of the most important developments since yesterday
when it was effectively confirmed that all aboard the submersible had been lost.
And for some this is, I don't know, it's just enough information for
them to think like, God, did the Navy do the right thing in not revealing this,
maintaining hope for friends and family?
There's those sorts of concerns because they apparently did make the rescuers
aware of this and of course the rescue continued.
Understand that them detecting that sound is not confirmation necessarily of what
had happened.
The ocean is very large, it's full of a lot of different sounds.
Remember that just a couple of days ago it was believed that people
had heard from some planes during the research rescue effort,
had heard knocking inside of what could have been the submersible.
That turned out not to be true.
For others, the fact that the Navy had heard that and
not said anything has generated any number of different conspiracy theories and
perhaps we will talk about that.
But first, we should talk about the fact that they did obviously decide
to continue the search and rescue effort, particularly because detecting that sound
is not definitive of exactly where it happened.
So even if you only expected to receive confirmation and not actually save anyone,
you would still have to do that search, even if you believed that
the sound that had been detected was the catastrophic implosion in the submersible.
It was eventually found roughly 1600ft from the bow of the Titanic wreckage.
So a very large area had been searched.
They actually were quite close to the Titanic.
It is believed potentially that the implosion happened before it was able to
actually make it to the Titanic.
They found the landing frame and a rear cover.
You can actually see right here a schematic of the submersible and
some of the parts that were actually found.
So we're gonna have some responses to this.
Obviously a lot of people are still coming to grips with the fact that this did fail.
This tragedy that it was believed to be is exactly what we thought it would be.
All aboard were lost.
What do you all make of it?
>> I'm with James Cameron so we're gonna get to him in a second, but
I thought some of this stuff was sorry, but I thought it was kind of obvious.
Like I said to our production team the very first day that it broke,
I think they were all gone.
And I said that based on two things failing at once.
They lost, I think, navigation and communications.
That means the sub is good.
Look, with some submersibles and submarines, they go under the water.
Their number one problem is pressure, right?
And when something goes wrong with pressure, it doesn't go a little wrong.
It usually goes all the way wrong, right?
So I never thought that there was any prayer.
And to me, one of the main questions is why did people keep up this ruse?
And there's one particular part here that I again, 100% with James Cameron.
They go, well, why didn't we do that?
So we'll get to that in a minute.
But Sharon, what do you think?
>> I mean, I don't know.
Everything you said makes sense.
I'm an educated girl, but I was waiting and begging for
the Hollywood ending here and I didn't consider all the obvious things.
I just bought in like everybody else and was just thinking about that
Russian submersible, that sub all those years ago and
what they might find, what they might be able to do here.
Not considering just how different this is.
And that didn't work out either.
But I don't know, it just feels to me,
Cenk, that it's like everyone's trying to be front and center on this one.
Everyone has something to say.
Everyone wants to be heard on the story.
Everyone's an expert.
I feel that way about James Cameron, but
he really is an expert because he did do all those dives, 30 plus of them.
But I don't know, I felt like this was a script that could have had a Hollywood
ending even though it didn't make sense.
I get why people were so invested in it.
>> Yeah, I'll say two quick things about that.
One is, look, part of the reason and the productions have almost tackled me on
it is that you don't say they're goners is because you don't know and
you don't wanna destroy people's hopes and be the bad guy who says, yeah,
they're gone before you know for sure, right?
So I get it.
That's why we were all rooting.
We're all rooting for maybe.
Maybe, right?
And James Cameron is exactly the kind of guy who would be full of crap normally,
but in this case, he really does have expertise and he is making sense.
>> So why don't we actually go to that?
>> Yeah, let's do it.
>> I was out on a ship myself on Sunday.
I didn't hear about it until I woke up Monday morning.
I immediately got on the phone to some of my other contacts in
this deep submersible community.
Within about an hour, I had the following facts.
They were on descent.
They were at 3500 meters, heading for
the bottom at 3800 meters, coms were lost and navigation was lost.
And I said, instantly, you can't lose coms and navigation together without
an extreme catastrophic event, a highly energetic catastrophic event.
And the first thing that popped to mind was an implosion.
So I felt in my bones what had happened.
>> So you can tell from that video, he seemed pretty sure, but continuing on,
you made a reference to his thoughts about what should have been done.
Let's continue with him.
>> So this entire week has just felt like a prolonged nightmarish charade
where people are running around talking about banging noises and talking about
oxygen and all this other stuff, and their Coast Guard is out with airplanes.
I knew that sub was sitting exactly underneath its last known depth and
position.
That's exactly where they found it.
>> Yeah.
I mean, obviously, even if the Navy thought that,
that doesn't mean that they can immediately search that exact area.
There are very few actual submersibles that can reach that depth.
That's sort of the problem here.
But I know that's what you wanted to talk about, so what are your.
>> Yeah, so look, I already talked about two things going wrong.
He fills in a lot of details because,
of course, I'm not in the submersible community, right?
And he has gone down to look at the Titanic site 30, 40 times.
James Cameron has.
So he knows all about this.
He is a subject matter expert, and so he knows the details.
Like, hey, it's more likely to be an implosion, et cetera, right?
Like, to me, if you told me implosion, explosion, I don't know.
But I know if two things go wrong at once,
you're in a lot of trouble in a submersible.
Okay, so now the second part of it is I was like, look,
I didn't say this to anyone because I thought I assumed that they had done this,
because I think it's so obvious.
The first place you look, and a lot of times, almost the only place okay, fine.
You want to look beyond it, sure.
But the first, second, and 8th place you should look is right underneath where you
lost the signal, because likely something went catastrophically wrong and
it's at the bottom of the ocean.
Did they not look there?
Where were we looking for?
>> I mean, I don't believe that they had the direct capacity to do that.
They did not have something that could actually go right there and look there.
>> But apparently we have some capacity because we found it.
>> Yeah, no, eventually they did.
I mean, one of the things in the early days of this being a news story that was
talked about a lot was we believe they have X hours of oxygen, but the issue is,
even if we knew exactly where they were, we cannot actually get them right now.
That was one of the concerns.
It took time for
an actual thing that could go down there to be brought to the area.
That's my understanding anyway.
Okay. >> But looking around.
>> I've only been to the Titanic, like, ten times, so
I'm not the expert that some of these people are.
>> Looking around in Norway and Taiwan isn't gonna help you.
It is very likely in the area where you last lost communication.
So I feel like the rest of it was an enormous waste of time.
>> I feel like this whole thing and I'm probably wrong and
it's probably disrespectful to say it, but everything was feeding the other monster.
Even the people who were giving the updates, part of the investigative team.
The whole world was invested in this.
This was the ground zero.
Everyone's attention was on it.
And so, yeah, I'm not suggesting that they necessarily lied, but
why not keep this thing going and show what we know?
And the thing that kind of ticks me off about James Cameron is I don't
believe that he's upset that the charade and
the wool was pulled over people's eyes getting their hopes up.
I think he uses this to show how much he knows.
He's an insider.
I was talking to people in my community, the deep sea community, and
this and that, and I had these facts confirmed.
He's an investigative journalist.
It's just something about it that rubs me the wrong way.
And that's why I just can't get over the fact that everyone just seems to want
to be cemented and ingrained in this story.
>> Yeah, I hear you.
That's why I said instinctually.
You think James Cameron is the kind of guy who's gonna be full of crap, right?
Because he has this enormously arrogant attitude about him, right?
But having said that, sometimes somebody can be arrogant and
be right at the same time, right?
And he was enormously arrogant about the movie Titanic, and
it turned out he was right.
And he was incredibly arrogant about Avatar, and it turned out he was right.
So in this case, he proved to be right again, whether we like it or not.
>> Yeah.
By the way, I just wanna quickly update you on some of the past comments that had
been made about safety by the CEO, who was, of course,
lost in the disaster on the submersible.
Stockton Rush apparently had been speaking with filmmaker and
deep sea explorer Rob McCullum, and McCullum had told him to put on
hold the trips that he was going on until an independent agency had been able to
certify, basically, that the submersible was safe.
Rush responded that he was, quote,
tired of industry players who try to use a safety argument to stop innovation.
We have heard the baseless cries of you are going to kill someone way too often.
I take this as a serious personal insult.
And, of course, Stockton Rush was lost, as well as four others,
including as has come out in the last day.
The 19 year old suleiman duo that you see in the middle of that,
who apparently had not wanted to go on this trip and only did because it was
happening over Father's Day and his father really wanted him to go.
Look.
So at the same time,
I totally understand why some people are angry that this is a big story.
I totally get that.
I mean, five people have died, but five people have died in one of the mass
shootings that have happened somewhere in America today.
And the money that was spent on the search rescue probably could have saved many,
many lives in a number of other ways.
And I understand that some of the media probably, like CNN,
always wants something with a plane or a boat or whatever.
They're always something with a vehicle.
But for regular people, like some of the personal stuff of this,
as well as just how unique of a story it is, I understand why it draws them in,
the idea that, what if we could save people in this extreme situation?
Wouldn't that be a testament to what we are capable of as a species?
So I get both sides of it,
the frustration as well as the interest that a lot of people genuinely have.
>> 100%, so part of the frustration is the media love dude,
where's my car kind of stories like, where's the plane?
Where's the submarine?
Because it's like a big mystery and it sucks people in.
But the other side of it is the media loves it because real people like it.
And like Sharon said earlier, it's kinda like a movie, but in our real lives.
And maybe that sucks and maybe we shouldn't operate that way, but
we kinda do, and let's be honest about it.
And did we all get sucked into the sub story?
Yeah, we did.
Okay, so we just have to be honest about everything that's happening around it,
which doesn't happen often.
And then finally, look, I'm gonna throw a bomb out here.
And it's important how I phrase this.
I'm glad Stockton Rush was on it instead of someone else.
Like, if it was someone else piloting it and there was going to be five dead people
anyway, I would rather have it be Stockton Rush than someone else, okay?
Because it was his fault.
It was his dumb idea not to be more safe to ignore the regulations that we showed
you a clip, I think, yesterday, where he's kinda bragging about how he did
it off the shelf and he did it in a way that other people didn't agree with.
Yeah. You wanna be an innovator in physics and
you're sitting at your desk and you're coming up with a different formula.
Have at it host.
You wanna be an innovator with, like, safety doesn't mean anything, man.
I just took a bunch of chances because I'm a daredevil innovator.
Well, then I'm glad it was you and not someone else.
I said it.
>> Yeah. I mean,
I get exactly where you're coming from.
And the other part is this.
Well, number one, the media loves rich people, okay?
The media loves stories about rich people and
rich people coming on to talk about rich people.
But I think you're right about Stockton because the ego was grand.
There probably a brilliant guy.
But once the ego gets out of sorts, it doesn't matter how brilliant you are,
you're gonna get checked because you're gonna overtake the facts and
the science and believe that you have all the answers.
And in the end, it's a tragedy.
And I also understand why it is of interest to so many people.
But I think the other part and the anger comes in not because they don't
want people to cover this story, the media, but
because of the ignoring of other big stories, or you would think they would
meet that threshold of being a big story, but we'll see the movie about it.
James Cameron's already probably purchased the right.
>> Maybe he is an expert.
>> That would be very ironic.
Yes.
>> And I agree.
You previously said that the media loves rich people.
They also love innovators until the innovators get people killed.
I mean, there had been, like, a tenuous link to this story with Starlink and
Elon Musk, but I honestly think if you're gonna connect those two things,
the fact that the boat had Starlink is not a particularly interesting link.
The fact that Elon Musk also pushed experimental technology and
encouraged people to use it and oversold its capabilities, and
there's a massive scandal over the people that died as a result of that technology.
That seems like maybe a stronger link thematically to this story.
And a lot more people than five have died thanks to some of those technologies.
>> You're forcing me to say one last thing, John.
No, I gotta correct you.
The media does not love innovators.
The media loves innovators who are incredibly wealthy.
>> Okay. >> Sure.
So, like, actual innovator in Tesla was an engineer who came up with a car.
What's his name?
I don't even know.
>> That's a good point.
>> Okay, and if you're an innovator in politics, like Bernie Sanders,
the media despises you, right?
So you've gotta be an innovator plus already incredibly wealthy.
Then they'll be like, what a brilliant innovator.
Whether you actually are or aren't.