Comments by "SmallSpoonBrigade" (@SmallSpoonBrigade) on "The History Guy: History Deserves to Be Remembered" channel.

As somebody who was working in security around that time with IED identification training, that whole thing was gross incompetence and there's no legitimate claim that it wasn't. Devices that size cannot take down a bridge or destroy a subway. The absolute worst case would be something along the lines of a claymore, which is completely useless against a bridge. And simply keeping people out of the general area while they figured it out would have been both appropriate and sufficient until they figured the first one out. The equipment they used to destroy that first one were more of a threat to the infrastructure than the device they were worried about itself. Sometimes, you just have to leave the past in the past and just resolve to use a bit of common sense in the future. IEDs are nasty bits of work, but a device of that size is simply not much of a threat when it comes to a bridge stantion.
73
@FakeSchrodingersCat That would have justified closing the immediate vicinity and not much more, certainly not shutting down the trains. Even if they had been IEDs, they were just too small to inflict any meaningful damage on most of the objects they were attached to. Worst case scenario would have been some shrapnel and that's about it. Simply keeping people out of the area while they sorted it out would have sufficed. These aren't car bombs that were involved here, they were tiny guerrilla art installs.
11
@MrTigerprincess The point is that most of the disruption was the result of their incompetent response. In all cases just keeping people out of the area would have been sufficient and no reason to close down mass transit for such tiny devices that were clearly no threat to what they were attached to. Simply closing down the immediate area would have more than sufficed and been far less inconvenient.
5