As has been mentioned hanging the engines on the wing allows a designer to build lighter wings as the engines them selves provide wing bending relief.
If you go back to the late 50s and early 60s when ac like the VC10 and the 707 were being designed you can see the divergence in design. Boeing went for simplicity and a design type that was well understood having built the B47/B52 ac with engines on the wings. Vickers wanted an ac that had a clean wing so they could add high lift devices so that the ac could be flown from hot/high airfields with short runways that the 707 could not use.
The trouble was that by not having the engines on the wing the wing had to be stronger and stiffer and thus heavier than the 707... likewise, the engine mounting at the rear of the ac was heavy as well, thus increasing the cost/mile for each passenger.
There are some great advantages to putting the engines at the back... the cabin is quieter, and if an engine fails it is not so much of a drama as the asymmetric effect is not so bad as the engines are close to the centre-line.
The question of super-stall is one that often gets asked, and all T-tailed ac have the possibility of entering one if miss handled... remember, not all T-tailed ac have rear-mounted engines (eg C-17, BAe 146 etc)...
As for pushing or pulling an ac into the air... well, I kinda see what they may be thinking, but it is all down to where the thrust acts upon the ac and I am not sure that is really the best way to describe it.
The fashion has certainly gone away from rear-mounted engines, particularly in med-long haul, though there are plenty of short haul types around...
Sadly I don't think we will see an ac like the VC10 ever built again, and no-matter who won on the cost front the VC10 beat the 707 and its like in the beauty stakes hands down!!!! (not that I am biased)
Tonks
