That wasn't a bait and switch. He suggested the engineering problem isn't as hard as is being made out, and then when you claimed otherwise, he explained that he was in a strong position to know otherwise. In the real world, this is known as a "good argument".
He didn't claim his experience proved HE could do it. He didn't imply that you NEEDED his experience to do it. He was calling you out on your claim by showing that he had done it, and so knew from experience that it wasn't hard. You're the one moving the goal posts.
Note: I actually don't have an opinion on whether that experience is relevant to twitter's situation, but it certainly wasn't a bait and switch.
Evidently the concept of studying theory in school then applying that theory in the practical world of industry is too complicated to fit into 140 chars.
How much did Twitter cost to develop vs TIBCO Rendezvous? How much of the "easy" part did you come up with yourself vs working at a polished product that already? What are the actual volumes that Rendezvous handles and how do the details of the network topography compare? How do the details of the functionality compare? How much scalability analysis to they teach in CS (answer: only theory)? Is anyone who doesn't have your particular experience an idiot? Is working on a product for a small collection of the filthy rich better work than creating something that millions of people directly identify with?
Finally, how much do you know about Twitter's architecture and do you know the definition of hubris?
I'm afraid it's a nauseating mix of having operated real pub-sub systems such as TIBCO Rendezvous on major stock exchanges.
What Twitter does is not difficult and they do it badly.