When they tried to bring Concorde to JFK in the late 70's, It would have been no louder on landing than a 707 or DC8.
Yes, but unless they were going to build a new aircraft for each flight, eventually they'd have to take off too!
Now If America had suceeded in creating a SST, the amount of NIMBIES would be a lot less. This is just how things are.
We'll never know. The noise lobby was quite strong in those days, precisely because of those 707s and DC8s.
Unfortunately some here pretend they know, because they have an agenda to push.
You say Concorde was short ranged which indeed it was, but when it was first introduced, many flights heading to Europe seem to have a stupid amount of stop overs anywhere. So even though the Pan Ams 747's of the day had range, they would fly a route like DTW-JFK-LHR-CDG-FCO or whatever. Did range really matter? When Concorde flights first commenced, fuel was dirt cheap offsetting its fuel guzzling. Your comparing concorde to todays travel, direct flights and cheap ticket prices, not the era it was designed and intended to be operated in.
It was the aggregation of the issues (low range, high fuel and other operational costs, high noise levels) that guaranteed the Concorde would not become a commercial success. It might have hit its mark initially, but shortly after introduction fuel prices shot up and advances in the high bypass turbofan engine allowed for payload/range curves that the Concorde could not in general compete against. It's hard to imagine how an American SST would avoid the same fate.