The bottom line is that you still haven't explained how the builders took the cheap way out by instead continuing to build the additional 43 stories onto each tower. I won't bother to ask where you got the information that the fireproofing was not viable or did not perform to every 1970 standard (which did not include being rammed by a plane, and asbestos was never tested in such a way either, to my knowledge). You are clearly incapable of answering a direct question.
However to make the WTC project profiable, the towers had to be built over 100 stories.
You really don't know much, do you? Those towers were a white elephant for years, and as far as I know they never did reach full occupancy. Saving nearly half the cost of construction by topping them out at 67 floors would have made them almost instantly profitable.
Now, since you refuse to elaborate on the "cheap construction" of the World Trade Center, you're hereby invited again to shut the f#ck up. I won't respond to any more posts from you unless they are a detailed and sourced explanation of the CHEAP CONSTRUCTION of those Towers.
Got it? I sure hope so; an amoeba would have understood the question by now.
Rockerfeller moved many New York State offices to the WTC when it opened to achieve somewhat-near occupancy, and keep the WTC from being labeled a "white elephant".
Saving nearly half the cost of construction by topping them out at 67 floors would have made them almost instantly profitable.
In fact it would have created huge losses for the WTC.
Think land acquisition costs, design costs, overhead costs etc.