Perhaps Lubitz grew to absolutely hate his employer, Lufthansa, after some shoddy mistreatment by management or coworkers (some form of shaming) and thought he could get back at the company by inviting a deluge of wrongful death lawsuits which could affect the solvency of the company?

The way I understood the minister of the interior when he made that statement in context was that a bomb could be ruled out, or that the cockpit had been hijacked by violent passengers who then made the plane dive into the ground. On this board, in this very thread, the radar tracks were immediately published for everybody to see that it was a controlled descent that brought the plane down.

There is nothing nefarious to be read into those statements. At that point - before it was revealed that the co-pilot apparently was in control of the situation - it appeared by far more likely that there had been a technical malfunction or some other form of an accident. We now know better. But it doesn't help to imply a conspiracy when the context clearly shows no malicious intent.
This is one example of hundreds of thousands where today's insta-journalism makes it very difficult for the authorities to deliver a truthful and accurate message that remains consistent over time while the facts aren't yet fully on the table but nevertheless everybody demands an immediate answer.

What are you trying to accomplish with this speculation?
To me it appears utterly idle. Nobody on this forum knows the answer to your questions yet (and I think you are very well aware of that circumstance). This is the exact kind of breathless "reporting" that delivers accusation by question which makes it so difficult today to react adequately in a case of disaster, as far as informing the public is concerned, and which makes life even worse for the relatives of those who perished that are thrown into this turmoil of rampaging speculation where in the end you stop believing anything, no matter how well supported it is by the facts.

The investigators will look at the evidence and present them, along with their conclusions. Until then we all should stop trying to find answers without a shred of evidence lest we all want to look like fools in retrospect.

Since speculation has become rampant here now, I'll add mine.

He MAY have been "treated" for "depression"...chemically quite probably.

I personally have watched real life Jekyll's become Hydes when off their anti-depressants, and I mean RADICAl personality changes, in three different individuals in my last workplace. These changes happened very rapidly and were not pretty, coming close to serious violence in one incident.

Have you no curiousity? I'll apologize in advance if this is considered a bit harsh:

1) I'm not a journalist/reporter. This board is not a journalistic entity.
2) I'm not arguing that it is the truth. I'm not wedded to any particular speculative scenario. It's just that - speculation. I'm just considering a potential scenario and determining if it matches the facts at hand and how it fares against other potential scenarios. We'll see how it fares as new facts are revealed.
3) Any relative having trouble coping should not put themselves into private threads where speculation is occuring.
4) By your reasoning, this thread should not exist. We should only be reading statements put out by the investigative team. Why are you browsing this thread then?

Very surprised by your post Ssnake

As I reread Ssnake's concerns, I believe I understand the nature of his fears. It's not the speculation that he ultimately fears. He fears that there will never be enough evidence from the crash to dispel the whole variety of speculation going on and that festering speculation will always metastasize into conspiracy theory as time marches on and the investigation stagnates. His argument is not without merit, but I think that attempting to squelch the discussion would, in the end, be counterproductive considering the social aspects of fora such as these.

If you're speaking for the minister, then please explain the difference between a "violent passenger" or a "violent co-pilot".

The end result is the same. A man took the lives of others without their consent. So it is still quite suspicious just how quickly the minister was out front trying to dispel any terrorism. In this day and age, why was he so quick to do so? Are you able to answer for him?

Just because someone killed a lot of people doesn't make it a terrorist attack. Pilot suicides without political background are not that uncommon, sadly.

Terror is the new buzz word of the day. It usually meant there was some politics behind the incident but now it just means any sort of attack.

Lufthansa, other carriers put 2 person cockpit rule into effect.

What?

What what?

Phew, hardly common then.

Yeah, 8 is not what I would call common. And a 1/4 of those were just the pilot only.

The point was simply that there are precedents for such events.

Yup not uncommon enough

I'm just spitballing here, but periodic competency exams might be in order.

CB

I went shopping for groceries for this WE just 30 minutes ago. 50 m from my place there is an insurance broker's office. Lots of candles and some flowers. Happens to be the husband of the singer who was in the aircraft with their little child.

Too damn close.