Nepotism

Dear Investigator Daniel Samuel
One of the points that two investigators of the NYSIG raised while interviewing me was one instance of suspected nepotism.
I did not used the word nepotism, rather highlighted a pattern that may have led investigators to legitimately use the word nepotism. This set of coincidences started with LMDC's vice president -that ran the design process- hiring his -obscure- friends and previous business partners as paid LMDC consultants. Weeks later allowed the same friends to submit design schemes for the New World trade center under the name of the chosen architect (BBB). All the designs that were submitted at that stage failed miserably. The same friends were later added as a seventh team to 6 chosen teams composed of well-known celebrity architects from all over the world. The seven teams received government money and priceless heavy national and international news media attention.
There are two competing theories to explain new WTC rebuilding process' failures either severe incompetence or corruption. Incompetence does not come in that severe of a form, does not happen systematically and does not serve the interest of the same person every time. As you can see, I am leaning towards the theory that suggests corruption. In any case, the national task of rebuilding Lower Manhattan after September 11 should be neither incompetent nor corrupted. My book analyzed the rebuilding process of the new World Trade Center from a national perspective, yet it does not offer a list of suspects that you can immediately arrest. It rather offers clues and leads for investigators to follow. I followed architecture you should follow money to know who to arrest. To answer investigator Daniel Samuel’s question, "Should we arrest him?" I did not receive the kind of training you received to be an investigator neither do I have the expertise you posses. I cannot precisely, based solely on following the architecture determine whether you should arrest him. If you would take an opinion from a guy who went to school for architecture like me, I would recommend investigating these 2 possible theories before making a determination: 1- Mr. Garven argued unconvincingly in one of the books that was written about the rebuilding process that he hired his friends as a "think-tank" to help him. 2- Nepotism or worse.
While this one instance is serious, there are dozens of equally or even more serious instances of wrongdoings that I investigated while following the rebuilding process. The time NYSIG allowed me to present was not enough to bring all my findings to their attention. It is not fair to focus on this one instance of and ignore all the other ones.
I can answer any questions you may have regarding this essay, also I can print you a copy of my manuscript for your information. I can prepare a 2 hours power point presentation to highlight the investigative part of my book.
Your Sincerely
Ramez George (Was originally Written and sent on 2/18/2010)