Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-sept
ember.org, at 21:21:18 on Fri, 15 Sep 2017, Recliner
remarked:
And as with other attacks, there may be a bomb-making cell behind it.
We can laugh at their incompetence with this bomb, but they may get it
right with a second one.

Hence the sharp increase in security resources now being devoted to finding
them, as after 21/7.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/15/four-lions-factor-how-terrorist-incompetence-is-saving-lives

"initial examination of the device led explosives experts to
conclude it was 'viable', meaning it was meant to explode more
fully."

Is that really what 'viable' means? I'd always thought it meant
"constructed in such a way that it would in fact usually explode",
rather than merely wishful thinking on the part of the bomb-maker who
meant it to explode, had it been constructed properly.

cf: "capable of working successfully"

My reading of it is that the igniter/detonator went off, but that for some
reason (obviously not disclosed) it failed to set off the main bomb. Had
the latter gone off, the effects would have been far worse.

Obviously I don't know why the main bomb didn't go off, and will refrain
from speculating.