To answer a question with three questions, "Is the plan being built now a) viable? b) sustainable, and c) cost-effective?" We think the short answer to all three questions is "no."

The principal issue with the plan being built now revolves around security for the site. In February 2008, the NY Daily News reported that the NYPD assessed Towers 2 through 4 as being at an aggravated risk of truck bomb attacks. The NYPD recommendations included among other things, closing off the western half of Church St., setting up a major checkpoint called "Sallyport" near Cedar St., and granting vehicular access to the site only to specially "credentialed" drivers – those who have a WTC-issued ID. This all defeats the purposes of re-imposing the pre-1968 street grid and opening it to vehicular traffic. This embassy-like security would render the WTC a fortress, making it an unpleasant place to conduct business. Tourists would be turned off by this and avoid the site. The effects of the partial closure of Church St. would reverberate through much of lower Manhattan, resulting in more snarled traffic.

Towers 2 through three – and possibly 4 are being re-designed now to address the security recommendations, and to include trading floors which were never thought of when the site plan was originally conceived.

Every aspect of this project is behind schedule and over budget.

The performing arts center and the Calatrava terminal are in some danger of not being built.

The memorial is costly to build, costly to operate and would be the first memorial we know in history to charge admission fees. The giant waterfalls would be turned off for much of the year.

At the 130 Liberty St. site, an incompetent and unqualified contractor was hired to decontaminate and demolish the building. The contractor committed numerous acts that egregiously violated workplace safety rules. The result? A major fire, two dead firefighters, two seriously injured firefighters, interminable delays, and uncertainty as to what will be built there.

The proposed tour bus garage is unnecessary, as tour busses circulate from one attraction to the next; riders "hop on and hop off," the exact words used in the advertising for some of these busses.

Though the "Freedom Tower" has vastly improved since the prior version with the infamous "birdcage," and its impossible-to-build predecessor before it, the building contains over 10 floors of idle space totaling at least 380,000 square feet. In essence the "birdcage" has been spread out and covered with glass. Tenants will have to subsidize this unused space, which could account for why the only the company that has expressed interest is one that has a history of reneging on deals. The only other "tenant" is the General Services Administration, which has a NON-binding lease agreement. In the free market, this sort of response would result in the cancellation of the project.

Progress at the WTC site has been limited to "Freedom Tower" core and perimeter columns, three temporary PATH stations, underpinning the 1/9 train, and the passageway to the World Financial Center. NY Post real estate columnist Steve Cuozzo referred to the progress as "moving dirt around" in a June 23, 2008 article. The "Freedom Tower" foundation can be re-used on our plan, and the rest of the work done would be unaffected by changing plans.

We accept the idea that there is a chance our plan may not be built, and we are not here to lead anyone down a primrose path. But, our plan has existed since 2003. It is available as what we believe to be a superior alternative to the project being built now. There is no reason to cease marketing it, because some of the current project's supporters say it's too late. The state of progress at the WTC site; the possibility that several aspects of the project might not be built at all while others are being radically changed; the official project's numerous serious flaws; and Governor Paterson's highly public request for a complete accounting of what is happening with the project suggest otherwise.

Our position is that the current project is not viable, sustainable, or economical as currently designed.

The models are architectural renderings, accompanied by a nearly complete set of design drawings from which construction drawings can be made. One of the designers, Herbert Belton, AIA (deceased) worked on the prior WTC site. Ken Gardner has a structural engineering degree from Rutgers University. The plan has been reviewed by a licensed PE and determined to be premised upon sound engineering principles. The designers consulted with "rank and file" family members, and other stakeholders in developing a plan that they could be satisfied with. This is an actual plan that can be used to build out the WTC site (and is open to modification). No other Twin Towers-based plan for the post-9/11 WTC site exists with this level of sophistication and completion.

The other Twin Towers-based "plans" can be accurately described as concepts that have been conceived and/or promoted by various protest groups and individual rebuilding supporters. This plan was developed to provide a viable, sustainable and economic means to rebuild the WTC site. Though many individuals and organizations who support rebuilding the Twin Towers support this plan, this plan is not the product of any protest or advocacy group.

These other concepts created by concerned citizens are nowhere near sufficient as being a set of plans from which final construction drawings can be generated. Work can begin on this plan within months of acceptance.

Though similar in form to the Yamasaki Twin Towers, the buildings proposed in this plan are radically different "under the hood." These would be completely different buildings from their predecessors. Our proposed Twin Towers are as analogous to the originals as the Norwegian Dawn is to the Titanic. While we respect the opinions of those who would prefer something completely different, we think this is the best plan for the site for a number of very good reasons:

It is cheaper to build two 1,500-foot buildings with identical rectilinear shapes and floor plates than four buildings at 1776, 1339, 1255, and 975 feet, which not only have different floor plates among them but, at least in the case of "Freedom Tower" – a different floor plate on every floor.

The standardization inherent to our Twin Tower and lower building design ensures that the buildings can be erected more rapidly.

The current site plan has not received any significant tenant interest. We believe our plan is more suited to the WTC site, and far more marketable; therefore, more likely to earn its keepers a profit. Our buildings do not contain hundreds of thousands of square feet in idle space. Builders build buildings to earn a profit.

We agree that there were several flaws with the original WTC site. The elevated super-block cut the site off from the rest of downtown. And there was a problem of density that our plan resolves. If we believed the current project was actually better than what was there before, we would support it and not market ours.

But, we believe that in their quest to do something different at the WTC site at any cost, its planners introduced a myriad of new problems, and in some cases exacerbated old ones.

We believe the site's planners have grossly under-estimated the actual costs of building out their plan. We further believe that their plan will actually cost more and take far longer than ours to complete. The planners' performance with deadlines and budgets leads us to believe that our assessment is correct in this regard.

Looking outside the Twin Towers, our proposed transit terminal is cheaper to build and will produce revenue. Our memorial can be built at a fraction of the cost and will function all year round without having to charge admission fees, while being something that 9/11 family members much prefer.

Our project is conceived for the purpose of earning its keepers a profit. In our assessment, the current project is an unmarketable, money-losing, political pet project, several aspects of which may never be built.

Where are the tenants for the current site plan? The support for a building project that counts is not "what should be built" polls, but binding and paid lease agreements. The WTC site as being built now has a stark scarcity of paid lease agreements – and it never won any popularity polls.

Pro-rebuilding groups and individuals have made a compelling case why the overwhelming public support for new Twin Towers, which has consistently been around 70%, should be given a great deal of weight, we don't believe that popularity polls are what will carry the day. Instead, the relative merits and lack thereof inherent to each plan will determine the final outcome.

Our approach focuses on building a site that will work and be profitable. Popularity will naturally follow. In any arena in which both plans have been compared, we have been tremendously encouraged by the reception we've received and believe that in the final analysis it is our plan that best satisfies all the competing needs at the site. Overnight we can convert a "lose-lose" into a "win-win." Why would we settle for less?