WI: Argentine Jet crashes into the North Tower in 1981

ButWhatIf

Banned
On February 20th, 1981, an airliner from Aerolineas Argentinas came close to crashing into the North Tower of the World Trade Center after veering low in the sky while on approach to JFK International Airport, over 20 years before the September 11th attacks.

What if something happened so that the jet wasn't able to divert its course in time, and crashed into the North Tower?

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/1981/02/27/nyregion/jet-crew-to-be-asked-about-near-miss.html
 
On February 20th, 1981, an airliner from Aerolineas Argentinas came close to crashing into the North Tower of the World Trade Center after veering low in the sky while on approach to JFK International Airport, over 20 years before the September 11th attacks.

What if something happened so that the jet wasn't able to divert its course in time, and crashed into the North Tower?

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/1981/02/27/nyregion/jet-crew-to-be-asked-about-near-miss.html
The North tower is gone..that might compromise the structural integrity of south tower too...meaning will be demolished...not OWTC, maybe a new building or something different.

Might the action kill the Company? Possible.

The rest spect the black/gallow humor of incompetent argentinan pilots forever
 

DougM

Donor
I don’t see where it says what type of plan but it only had 49 passengers so it probably was not very large. Add in that it was the end of the flight so it probably had very little fuel left. And it sounds like it would hit higher up then what happened on Sept 11. So the weight of the structure above the damage/fire would be less.
So over all the building MAY stand. It was theoretically designed for a hit by a 707 the largest plan around when it was being designed.
Remember it was the fire that weakened the steal and allowed the collapse so decrease the fire and the steel does not lose as much strength. Decrease the load above that the steel at the fire is carrying and the steel does not need to stay as strong, Add the two together and a good chance it stays up.
As icing on the cake the fire prof coating is newer so should hold up a bit better (not much but a bit) and with a smaller aircraft the area “sand blasted” by the impact/debris from the crash will be smaller so less steal will be exposed thus helping the steel stay stronger longer.

So all in all you have a pretty good chance of avoiding a collapse. Still may have to take the building down ultimately but it has a good chance not to come down on its own.
 
This might mean Argentina does not cease the Falklands they're trying to promote a this wasn't intentional, hell they'll probably send engineers and try to fund it's reconstruction.
 
There was no sprinkler system in 1981, and several structural columns had deficient fireproofing or none at all (not discovered until inspections after the 1993 bombing). So it is possible an impact by a 707 with minimal fuel could still start a fire that takes the building down.

If the other tower doesn't collapse outright, it will be dangerously compromised. That area of Lower Manhattan might be cordoned off for months or even years while engineers figure out how to safely bring it down.

PATCO probably goes on strike and wins -- this happened due to defective equipment and controller overwork, and now Reagan can't fire them without it looking like a coverup.
 
This might mean Argentina does not seize the Falklands they're trying to promote a this wasn't intentional, hell they'll probably send engineers and try to fund it's reconstruction.

This. At the very least, it'd mean Thatcher probably wouldn't go to the country until 1984. Labour likely wouldn't do any worse ITTL since the Tories wouldn't have had the same boost they had under Thatcher, but I'm unsure of how much better they'd do.
 
Considering the time it happened, around 22:00, the buildings would not have many personel in them so if the tower came down we are looking at a casuality figure that is less than 100
 
Considering the time it happened, around 22:00, the buildings would not have many personel in them so if the tower came down we are looking at a casuality figure that is less than 100

As in OTL, there will be a substantial number of NYFD trying to put it out.
 
  • The aircraft was a 707 - about 50 tonnes lighter than the 767s which hit in OTL, probably travelling quite a bit slower too as it was on approach.
  • The aircraft was flying at 1,500 ft, with the top of the building at 1,377 ft - the risk was that it would have hit the TV antenna on the roof, not the building itself.
So no risk of the building collapsing, but a lot of bits of aircraft and jet fuel spread over lower Manhattan and probably quite a few casualties on the ground. As for longer term consequences, probably a shake-up of air traffic control locally and maybe some restrictions on Aerolineas Argentinas.
 
As @pdf27 finally pointed out, the risk was to the antenna, not the building itself.

So, the North Tower is fine. The plane itself and a line of Lower Manhattan from the North Tower, however...
 
The air traffic controllers were on strike out the time or had just been fired by Ronald Reagan.
Ronald Reagan would take some political Heat from the incident
 
Top