Its possible. You have to understand that after a while most tech component positions become a bit redundant and they spread the work components out to multiple people. As an example, lets say you needed 20 people to start a project to keep their servers up and 50% of those were automation engineers. The initial phases might be terribly hard so you'd spend 5 - 10 years understanding and refining your network, architecture, etc. But once you get past that first phase you may really only need 10 people, then you get into internal company politics and folks just get reshuffled and more importantly rebadged. Then there's the evolution of tech. You don't need 30 engineers for a 6000 node network. You may need 20% of that but you need some really smart ones to ensure you're up to market standards. Where Twitter, imo, really needed folks was in legal and PR because that's where most of its biggest issues are. The tech side has components that are highly robust and I of course say this as pure speculation after seeing their architecture.
The gold standard is Netflix, that thing is a CS marvel with how it upspins components to match pressure and retain data consistency. If they can do it, I am sure Twitter isn't far behind.
If you're interested, there's a book that is sort of relevant now but not so much that I always ask folks in SWE to read its called "The Mythical Man Month"
The Mythical Man-Month - Wikipedia
Talks about shortening delivery blocks and not throwing more people at a problem. There's more modern literature of course but its very domain specific and further tech specific too.
If you're interested in their architecture - The Infrastructure Behind Twitter: Scale I know its 2017 but that's some serious stuff for even 2017.