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!
It came up on a search for articles on the missing airliner. I think I may had read something about Trump this site come up in a search I did right after Trump was elected too.
Believe it or not there are people out there who have never heard of this stuff. I bet if you were to ask most people out there irl what MGTOW means or what an incel is they would have no idea.
Anyway I can only take so much hostility for one day and I am clearly not welcome here in spite of my efforts to be open minded.
headdesk
@Mark
Your wife is a Mawrter, and has never heard of the term toxic masculinity? Do not let any of her Mawter friends find out, that would be hugely embarassing for her.
fwiw I have the physical characteristics of what an incel would call a Chad, but do not behave like one. Anyway they would hate me even more.
It doesn’t matter what you intended, doll. Your casually ableist language is harmful and speaks volumes about how you feel about mentally ill folx.
Also, an apology really isn’t, when you immediately do the thing again that you just claimed to be sorry for.
You’ll excuse us for giving you massive side-eye, gumdrop.
Folx, it’s very important we all know Mark is a beautiful man with a beautiful wife. Otherwise, we might think he’s trolling.
At this point I’d say it’s practically notarized.
@Mark – Mark. My dude.
I will break down how you communicated here, because it’s actually pretty funny.
David posts an article, and people are talking about it below.
You came in, and decided to join the conversation. That is good! As long as you stick within the rules of the site, you are free to converse. More voices makes the conversation richer.
you – “Hello! I don’t understand this term, so I’m going to interpret it for you. It means all men are murderers! That’s not cool! Why are you mean to men?”
us – “That is not what it means. Here is what it means.”
you – “I don’t need to read any articles/definitions/explanation because I understand english, and ‘toxic masculinity’ means you think all men are murderers. Also I’m going to throw neuroatypical people under the bus. <3!"
us – "Mind the comments policy."
you – "Sorry, I didn't mean to offend any neuroatypicals! But also, if you think about it, isn't anyone who could do this crazy?"
us – "Mind the comments policy."
you – "Again, really sorry, but I was just trying to say how X, Y, and Z are mentally ill. And assholes!"
us – "MIND. THE. COMMENTS. POLICY."
you – "EVERYONE IS SO MEEEEAN TO MEEEEE!!!"
and ~fin.
If you can *follow the rules*, come on back. I would think that a pilot would be good at following rules?
As to why I thought you were older, well, you didn't know my underlined words were links, so…..
Well, most of the people I know haven’t heard of these things except in passing, so I think you’re probably right.
But if you don’t know much about a subject, it’s usually a good idea not to try to explain it to folks who do. That’s a big part of why you’re getting hostility and pushback.
@kupo:
Now why Does that sound fAmiliar?
@Surplus
Yeah, but Ambrose would have informed us he was doing his beautiful wife right now, as he’s typing this response.
You know, as all reasonable people do.
I don’t have an issue with your ignorance. What I have an issue with is your being smug about your ignorance and implying people who do care about this stuff only do so because we don’t have anything better going on in our lives.
But, hey, congrats on being super duper hot or whatever. Same to your wife.
Okay, so I committed the original sin of not looking something up (toxic masculinity)before posting about it. Guilty as charged, and I admitted as much.
I have witnessed mental illness first hand and just how devastating and traumatic it can be. A good friend had a psychotic breakdown literally in front of me when we were hanging out. He was soon after diagnosed with Schizophrenia and it has pretty much ruined his life.
I have other experiences with people close to me having mental illness issues as well. If anything I would like to feel I am sympathetic to the mentally ill and feel more should be done to help them. I have also seen first hand just how shitty our system is for dealing with people with mental health issues. So I would like to believe I am very sympathetic to people with mental health issues.
I also had a younger brother who was developmentally disabled die last year of complications of that, so I am really quite sympathetic. I think it was a misunderstanding. So please don’t label me when you know nothing about me.
And about the Chad thing, I just said that cause I thought whatever I dont care any more. But when in college I worked part time as a male model so I know I am totally hot. However, I think the incels have a very skewed perception of human dating behavior. They assume just because I guy is good looking he is gonna be a male slut. Nope, some of us actually value deep and lasting relationships.
Sweet merciful Goddess dude, stop digging.
Well, hell, now I’m on the fence.
I mean, I really want to believe Mark is just a bit clueless and kind of defensive, but…trolls never stick the flounce.
I’m so torn…
Also
I see what you did there.
Nice.
I kinda knew I would get roasted for the Chad stuff lol.
So you guys think I am a total fake. At this point there is no point in me trying anymore. And I think my wife is beautiful, what is wrong with that? Don’t people who actually love their SO’s usually see them as beautiful?
@Mark
That quote was referencing a troll we had around here named Desperate Ambrose, who literally claimed he was in bed with his supermodel girlfriend as he was typing his comment.
Again, for what it’s worth, I mostly believe you’re being honest. Maybe that makes me a sucker, but whatever; I know how it feels to be on the receiving end of this.
But honestly, what does your looks or your wife’s have to do with anything we’re discussing? Why does your position on Trump matter?
If you’re not a troll, why are you putting up rhetorical flags about things no one asked or addressed but you? Because that’s a tactic trolls use.
Just in case you’re not one, you need to know why you’re sounding like one here.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/05/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-slut/371773/
“`I kinda knew I would get roasted for the Chad stuff lol.“`
Considering that it just came outta nowhere, yeah.
At this point, I’d be somewhat surprised if anyone thinks you’re not.
As Gaebolga said, “trolls never stick the flounce”.
We’re not labeling you, dumpling. We’re accurately describing your behavior in this thread. Unfortunately, sometimes hearing the impression we give others hurts, but we’re not hear to sugar-coat it for you so you can feel better about yourself.
Also, if it was a misunderstanding, why didn’t you stop the first dozen or so times we asked and explained the policy to you?
Nothing is wrong with you finding your wife beautiful. But you use her beauty as some kind of shield against criticism. Having a wife is not a defense against anything you might say wrong on here, and attempting to do so is gross at best. Using your wife’s beauty as a status symbol puts you firmly into misogynist territory.
Mental illness is not defined as bad behavior. Or by being unhappy. Not even by thinking irrationally. All these things are done by neurotypicals as a normal course of daily life. Poor mental health is also not necessarily a disorder, just as being tired from lack of sleep is not chronic fatique.
Social influences in particular are not internal influences; being, say, a Manson Family murderer is not an illness, because you acted based on outside social influence and/or personal choice. You may have some sort of illness, say anxiety, but that is not why you acted as you did.
Stigmatizing mental illness, disabilities, and neurodivergence by attributing bad behavior and only bad behavior to “must be mentally ill” causes so so much harm, causes no good, and is simply not factually correct
Mental illness can only be diagnosed by the individual themselves (if done properly ofc, as is usually the case) or a competent doctor who actually meets with the patient and follows diagnostic criteria, which can be flawed, which is why I say the individual’s perspective on themselves is important.
You know you havent read a Psych 101 book or taken it, bc if you had, youd know better already, if you paid any attention. Why would your opinion on illnesses be correct if you didn’t study them? Would you also diagnose dude w asthma this way? big doubt
(even if you see someone having issues breathing and using an inhaler, and guessed asthma, you could be wrong btw. Even actual Drs mis-Dx)
& the function of this ableism is to change the convo from “our society has issues, that people with social privilege like white men are so poisoned by that they commit horrible acts that also destroy their own lives”
into: “it was actually a marginalized person in disguise. Marginalized people are the real problem. Dont change privilege, but reinforce oppression.”
@Jesalin
I cracked up over the Right Said Fred vid. ?
@ in general
Didn’t the anonymous that was banned a while ago also say that he was the studliest of studs? Is this like a general troll thing to do, or does that one guy keep coming back with different accounts multiple times?
@anon
Thank you, thank you for putting this so clearly.
I’m on the fence if our New Mark is a troll or not. i admit i don’t have the best trolldar, because the idea of going to a site discussing issues that impact people’s life in such a huge way and shitposting is a foreign concept to me.
So no, Mark, I don’t think you are a troll.
But i do think you are used to being respected, and having your opinion considered. I think that us disregarding your opinion completely threw you for a defensive loop.
If i’m right, you have a beautiful opportunity here. Sit with your discomfort. Realise that no, we don’t think your contribution advanced the conversation in any way, because you know nothing on this subject. Not even the 101 level stuff.
But here is the amazing thing! (Honestly!!) You have a chance to learn something new, from people who know a lot about it, and discuss it often. If you ask questions in a nice way, you will probably get answers or things to read more on.
We all have little nuggets of bad thinking that we have to dig out. They can be really deep. Sometimes we need to trust that they are a problem.
You pulling the “i can’t be homophobic, my best friend is gay!” Card just… isn’t a good look.
Seeing all the connections you have with mental illness, i can see how you thought yourself a Good Person on it.
You probably are a good person, i don’t know. But declaring that hatred and assholery are mental illnesses is what we call ‘Not Helping’.
Eta: @anon put it reeeeally well! Read that instead of my blathering, haha.