By David Futrelle
With no plausible official explanation for the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 five years ago, and the failures of the assorted attempts to find what survives of the plane in the deep, dark waters of the southern Indian ocean, you may have assumed, as I did, that we would never know what happened to the mystery plane, or why.
In a must-read story in the latest Atlantic magazine, William Langewiesche argues that — despite the bungled investigation of the matter by the corrupt and inept Malaysian government, and the assorted roadblocks government officials have put in the way of other investigators — we actually have a very good idea not only of what transpired in the final hours of that doomed flight, but also why it may have happened.
It looks, in short, like a murder-suicide by an aggrieved middle-aged pilot, depressed and angry over the dissolution of his marriage and possibly also by his inability to attract the attention of several younger women he had become at least slightly obsessed with.
Usually, these sorts of murder-suicides — which are shockingly common — involve a man taking the life of a woman who has left him or otherwise threatened his sense of control over the relationship, and possibly a few other family members, before taking his own life. (Murder-suicides involving women as the murderers are rare.) In the case of MH370, it appears the alleged murderer took out 227 passengers and 12 crew in his act of “revenge” on the world.
Looking skeptically at the official Malaysian government report, and largely ignoring the vast array of spurious conspiracy theories that have sprung up around the plane’s disappearance, Langewiesche examines the sparse but revealing electronic and physical clues left behind by the plane as it veered sharply off its original flightplan and then, after a series of puzzling maneuvers, ultimately flew six more hours in the wrong direction until it ended up crashing violently into the ocean thousands of miles from its intended destination. He concludes, confidently, that the plane
did not catch on fire yet stay in the air for all that time. No, it did not become a “ghost flight” able to navigate and switch its systems off and then back on. No, it was not shot down after long consideration by nefarious national powers who lingered on its tail before pulling the trigger. And no, it is not somewhere in the South China Sea, nor is it sitting intact in some camouflaged hangar in Central Asia. The one thing all of these explanations have in common is that they contradict the authentic information investigators do possess.
What did happen? It appears the plane was deliberately taken down, almost certainly by one of the two men installed in the cockpit at the beginning of the flight — either the pilot, 53-year-old Captain Zaharie Ahmad or his co-pilot, 27-year-old Fariq Abdul Hamid. (There is zero evidence of a hijacking, and Langewiesche argues convincingly that it would have been exceedingly unlikely.)
“[I]t is difficult to see the co-pilot as the perpetrator.” Langewiesche writes.
He was young and optimistic, and reportedly planning to get married. He had no history of any sort of trouble, dissent, or doubts.
But Zaharie, the pilot,
was often lonely and sad. His wife had moved out … By his own admission to friends, he spent a lot of time pacing empty rooms waiting for the days between flights to go by. … He is known to have established a wistful relationship with a married woman and her three children … and to have obsessed over two young internet models … for whom he left Facebook comments that apparently did not elicit responses. … Zaharie seems to have become somewhat disconnected from his earlier, well-established life.
What happened that awful night? Langewiesche suggests that shortly before turning the plane around a hour into the flight, Zaharie either killed or incapacitated his co-pilot, then depressurized the cabin before sending the plane climbing to 40,000 feet in a deliberate attempt to kill the passengers and the rest of the crew.
Langewiesche paints quite a chilling scene of what likely happened:
An intentional depressurization would have been an obvious way—and probably the only way—to subdue a potentially unruly cabin in an airplane that was going to remain in flight for hours to come. In the cabin, the effect would have gone unnoticed but for the sudden appearance of the drop-down oxygen masks and perhaps the cabin crew’s use of the few portable units of similar design. None of those cabin masks was intended for more than about 15 minutes of use during emergency descents to altitudes below 13,000 feet; they would have been of no value at all cruising at 40,000 feet. The cabin occupants would have become incapacitated within a couple of minutes, lost consciousness, and gently died without any choking or gasping for air. The scene would have been dimly lit by the emergency lights, with the dead belted into their seats, their faces nestled in the worthless oxygen masks dangling on tubes from the ceiling.
Zaharie, or whoever was flying the plane, had access to much more effective oxygen masks with hours worth of supplies; after several hours, he could have re-pressurized the plane, confident that he was the only one left alive. Or he could have taken the mask off after putting the plane on its final course and turning on the autopilot, drifting into unconsciousness and ultimately death long before the plane hit the water.
As Langewiesche is well aware, it’s hard to believe that any pilot would do such a monstrous thing. But, as he points out, there have been several similar cases over the last 22 years, including one that seems to have been inspired by MH370.
In 2015, a year after the disappearance of MH370, a young co-pilot named Andreas Lubitz seems to have deliberately crashed Germanwings Flight 9525 into a mountain in the French Alps after locking the pilot out of the plane’s cabin. As I noted at the time, he was known for his explosive rage — and had just been dumped by his girlfriend, and though he was clearly not an incel, he was quickly adopted as a “legitimate SLAYER” and “incel hero” by the regulars on the incel-centric SlutHate forum (which has since morphed into Lookism). Now that Langewiesche has highlighted the romantic and sexual rejection that may have triggered Zaharie’s alleged murderous act, I wonder if the incels will embrace him as well. (If they don’t, it will likely be because of his age; incels like their “heroes” young.)
As I noted in my posts on Lubitz, men often react poorly to romantic rejection, sometimes lashing out with violence — sometimes as the rejecter herself, other times at the world at large. Roughly a third of all female murder victims in the United States are killed by their exes, and “murder/suicides” in which an aggrieved man kills his partner or an ex-partner are so common in the United States that they’re rarely reported as anything more than local news unless, say, an entire family is killed.
Or, in this case, an entire plane full of people.
Toxic masculinity kills.
We Hunted the Mammoth is independent and ad-free, and relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
The thing is, looking up phrases that are unfamiliar to you can help you learn what they mean, rather than inferring. Inferring is a useful skill, but it’s not the only skill to keep in one’s toolbox.
For example, careful observation of the commenters here would have informed you that some of them are men. Generally the male regulars here don’t exhibit toxic masculinity, though I shouldn’t speak for how well they feel they do with that, especially since a few have already said that it’s something they work on, a lot.
Exactly, which is why I didn’t bother to use google.
This is the part I wasn’t sure on, the way the author wrote it left that part a little ambiguous.
Anyway, if a woman has BPD or Narcissistic personality disorder like that woman in Arizona who murdered her ex, I don’t call it toxic femininity. I call it batshit crazy and/or evil and only attribute it to that particular woman, not all women.
… Mark, cool it with the crazy talk, seriously. Read the comments policy.
Also, if you don’t know what it means… LOOK IT UP. You guessed what it meant (“All men are potential murderers!!”), were roundly criticised for your inability to do the minimum amount of effort needed to actually see if your reading and the commonly accepted reading were the same (spoiler: they aren’t), and then doubled down on your ableist and #notallmen-ing!
Are you a returning Mark?
I can’t remember what the other marks did. Live on the beach? Eat seagulls? Be thousand years old?
Did you read any of my links? I did the work for you. It was easy, but it was still work. I’m feeling unappreciated here.
We’ll see if this posts! XD
FTR:
Mental illness isn’t always something you’re born with. There are some that can be acquired. Depression and PTSD are 2 examples. As for murder suicide, there are quite a few cases of men with severe PTSD following this path. Especially men who are veterans. Then there is the issue of PPD and infanticide in women. I could go on. Something like this is so extreme that a deranged mental state is highly likely. Especially given the fact that this man showed warning signs as did pilot Andreas Lubitz of GermanWings.
You wanna fight “toxic masculinity”? Well one start is to speak out against the stigma of depression(and PTSD) in men. If you’re a man and you’re depressed, it means you’re sick. It does not mean you’re weak! Teach em that reaching out for help is not an act of weakness but rather an act of strength.
Are you the moderator? Anyway I did read the policy, and I don’t know what “crazy talk” I did. All I did was respectfully disagree about something that was posted, but I realize it is up to you guys if you want to ban me.
What!?
Okay I will read your links and get back to you with an opinion formed by reading the links here. You are correct that I am not familiar with this stuff. I didn’t even realize they were links at first.
@Mark
Rhuu doesn’t need to be a moderator to ask you to follow the rules. In fact, it’s in the rules to ask you to please follow them rather than argue with you.
You said:
The comments policy, as you know, says:
Here’s what you said that’s in violation:
Please stop arguing about the policy with us. If you continue to violate it we will inform the cat overlords of this blog. They will not be pleased.
By “crazy talk,” Rhuu is referencing a perennial issue that often crops up with new commenters on this board because casual references to someone being or acting crazy – and affiliated idioms – are commonplace in colloquial English, said issue being blaming violence or some other reprehensible action on the perpetrator being mentally ill. The issue is that most people with mental illnesses aren’t violent, and many (possibly even most) violent people aren’t actually mentally ill. The violent racist assholes who lynched black people in America weren’t mentally ill; they were just violent racist assholes.
Likewise, most of the school shooters that I’ve heard of don’t have any diagnosed mental illnesses, they have toxic levels of entitlement and/or toxic worldviews. And most terrorists – Islamic and otherwise – are definitely not “crazy”; they may different set of priorities than you or I do, but that’s not a mental illness.
That’s the “crazy talk” that Rhuu is talking about and that they and others are asking you to stop.
…and it’s also mentioned in the comments policy.
My dad is an ex navy seal and a veteran, and I think he has PTSD and depression but he is also very macho and would never admit this. I was raised to be this way too and I do think there is a psychological cost to men feeling they have to be this way.
In the case of pilots however, it is not a case of just not wanting to admit they need help, it is quite literally that they will lose there job. There is insurance that covers this kind of thing for pilots, but if your career that you worked so hard for is part of your identity it is still hard to do.
“On the other hand, is it horrible to think that the premise of a lone survivor living on a plane full of dead people for several hours would make a good ghost/horror story? Amongst other things, would they – the sole survivor – be able to walk back through that cabin to the restroom without fearing one or more of the dead trying to grab at them?”
Suggestion: Zaharie Ahmad planned to set down in a hidden hangar somewhere and begin life anew. But the dead didn’t let him: they rose up against him and overpowered him so that he’d do the decent thing and go down with the ship. (Enough of them had seen Flight 96 that they had a technique worked out beforehand.) And of course, it wasn’t like he could kill them or anything, because…
Free free to take it from there (or: hijack all you like.)
Apropos of not much, I’ve always found it deeply ironic that one of the reinforcing pillars of toxic masculinity is the notion that other people can take your masculinity away from you.
Another aspect of toxic masculinity in most cultures is the belief that a man’s value is related to his job, and to lose one’s job is to be less of a man.
@ Mark;
If you want to be accurate, yes you do. You not only need to look up the definition, you need to apply that to the context in which the term is being used. Your responses simply scream “nuh-UH, masculinity isn’t toxic!” You have successfully “inferred” what the term means, and you got it almost perfectly backwards.
Toxic masculinity.
@ Mark
A working definition of toxic masculinity –
1. Taking asking for help with problems, including mental health as a weakness, through considering it unmasculine
2. Disregarding what your expressed emotions are telling you. They don’t have to be the sole reason for a decision, but are worth taking into account.
3. Accepting being an a###hole as an acceptable model of masculinity.
Other members of this community can present better definitions, but I think I’ve presented a starting point.
Masculinity is not universally toxic, but at the very least should not have the above three elements feeding into it.
I think we’re being trolled. This is just too on the nose.
We don’t have moderators, we moderate ourselves. If you are honestly here to discuss and learn, that is great, and welcome to the commentariat.
If you are here to troll, then you will be allowed to post until the regulars are tired of you, and someone emails David and asks him to ban you.
Now you know how it works ’round here. I am asking you to stop saying that people who commit violence must be mentally ill. That is not true, because ‘asshole is not a mental illness’.
(I tried to find the spongebob gif, but I couldn’t! I swear they’ve done it, with the rainbow???)
Wrote this before I went to lunch, and I wanted to thank everyone for clarifying why I was asking for what I asked for. 😀
Especially considering one of their first few comments was, “Are you the moderator? Anyway I did read the policy, and I don’t know what “crazy talk” I did. ”
So yeah, I’m leaning heavily toward troll rather than someone here to honestly engage.
It’s almost like this form of masculinity… is toxic… to those who internalize it…..
I am not saying people who commit violence must be mentally ill, I never said that. But that is what society and the FAA think. I originally said “personality disorder” when describing this pilot. Personality disorder refers to things like being a narcissist, sociopath, antisocial personality disorder, etc. in other words being a first class a-hole.
And my dad was a navy seal, and a naval academy graduate. If you choose not to believe me, don’t have much to say to that.
And I have read some of the links now, and it is a lot to take in. I have never really heard of the so-called manosphere, vaguely heard of Jordan Peterson or the term ‘incel’ on the news once or twice referring to that attack in Canada. Besides that I have never even heard of any of this stuff. Or that there was this big ideological war between feminism and the so-called manosphere.
This is probably because I didn’t even care, I am happily married to a beautiful woman and am raising my family. My wife considers herself a feminist but we don’t really discuss this stuff in our day to day life, we have so much else to talk about other than politics. Politically I consider myself middle of the road and I hate the Trump administration. You don’t have to be on the left for that, I think any moderate rational person should hate this current administration.
I get the sense there is a lot of suspicion and hostility towards me on here, but I am not trolling okay? I actually find this stuff kinda interesting. I have the day off and am doing a baking project with my five year old son right now in between reading this stuff.
Okay, seriously, STOP IT. You are arm chair diagnosing. If you do it again, I will have to email David.
I don’t think you understand just what makes this space so special. No TERFs, people push back against MRA/manosphere bullshit, and the fact that we shut down this ascribing violence to mental illness shit.
A lot of commenters have identified themselves as having various forms of mental illness. They have told us that they find the fact that we push back on “school shooter? Must be [insert mental diagnosis here]” something that makes this a space they can feel secure in.
If you want to learn, TAKE THE LOSS ON THIS ONE.
You have said you’re a pilot, and I’m gathering that you’re probably a little bit older. I’m glad you’re being introduced to these concepts, because the more people who know how terrible the manosphere is, the better.
But on the other hand, I won’t sacrifice the vulnerable members of our community to educate you.
In conclusion – I hope you cut out your ableism. Like, no more. You have the rest of the internet to do it on, but you can’t do it *here*. If you do that, I hope you um… ‘enjoy’ isn’t the right word, because the manosphere is super gross, but… Enjoy? your time here.
Actually those don’t mean the same thing, and you are continuing to violate the comments policy by insisting that they do. Look, we can’t insist that you have a deeply felt fundamental change of heart towards those of us who are mentally ill or neuroatypical, but we can insist that you cease to spread your hatred in this space.
How lovely for you! I am a woman living in this world, so I don’t have the option of simply ignoring those who wish me ill. I also care about other people who face oppression, even if it is different than what I face myself.
Sorry if I offended anyone with mental illness, I didn’t mean to. But something motivated these people to commit mass murder-suicide, and that something isn’t in the normal range of human behavior. Oh and there are plenty of pilots in their late 20’s and 30’s, it isn’t all old farts. Unless you consider people in that age range to be old.
And is ableism making fun of disabled people? If so that wasn’t my intention.
@Mark
Well I see the fine denizens of We Hunted the Mammoth have already been so kind as to disabuse you of a few of your peculiar notions regarding Toxic Masculinity and assumptions.
But please permit me to show you how adjectives and modifiers work:
Masculinity Toxic Masculinity
Growth Cancerous Growth
Traffic Congested traffic
Weather Inclement Weather
Vacation Disastrous Vacation
Babysitter Homicidal Babysitter
I could go on…
See how the modifier really, really changes the meanings, and see how using any of the above adjectives in front of the nouns in no way makes ALL of those nouns permanently tied to its adjective? Yeah, masculinity in itself is no more toxic than vacations are disastrous.
And I find it nearly shocking that you have been so sequestered from society that you (claim) never heard of Toxic Masculinity, yet you somehow knew how to find THIS oddly-named site?
@Mark
Regarding your claim that:
From your first post:
First off: terrorist do, in fact, take their “frustrations” out on innocent people. They believe that such violence is justified based on whatever ideology they subscribe to, and that doesn’t make them psychopathic. Most of them are rational actors within the context of their belief system.
For example, when the US dropped not one but two atomic bombs on civilian population centers in Japan during WWII – killing exponentially more than 270 innocent civilian (hell, killing way more than 270 infants and babies) – that wasn’t the act of psychopathic men; it was a calculated act of terror designed to hasten the surrender of an enemy that they assumed – probably correctly – would fight an invasion of their homeland to pretty much the last man, woman, and child, thus resulting in even more deaths – of both soldiers and civilians – than those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
It was a rational act within the context of their circumstances and beliefs, regardless of any moral calculations one wishes to apply to it.
Secondly: I’m not sure how to read “non-psychopathic men” as not referring to mental illness. No one is claiming that you said all violent men are mentally ill, but you pretty clearly implied that Zaharie Ahmad (a man who killed 270 innocent people) was. Hence the comments about “crazy talk.”
Lastly:
For what it’s worth, I don’t think you’re a troll.
This site has a long history of discussing topics that run counter to a lot of ingrained assumptions and biases that most people don’t even realize that they hold, and because of that, the regulars have dealt with a lot of trolling, and some view newcomers who exhibit those assumptions and biases with a bit of suspicion until they show that they’re here in good faith.
My first few posts on here were pretty spectacularly clueless, and I’ve seen others – both trolls and non-trolls – make pretty much the exact same assertions I did at first, so over time I’ve come to understand why I got the reactions I did back then.
If you’re truly interested in this and are here to learn and discuss, then welcome, and may I respectfully suggest that you assume that most of the pushback you may receive here isn’t actually personal, rather it’s an expression of exhaustion at having to make the same points over and over and over and over and over and over, ad infinitum.
Which isn’t your fault, by the way; it’s just a function of the ubiquity of patriarchal structures, systems, and beliefs that pretty much everyone has internalized to varying degrees.
@ Mark
Sorry everyone, this fellow needs a talking to.
‘Vorbis knew that there were no excesses of the most extreme psychopath that could not be duplicated by an ordinary family man with a job to do.’
These acts may not be common in the general run of things, but disturbance of the mind is not an appropriate ‘go to’ explanation for them.