I don't think you can tell the structural integrity of the pads from the photos we have of the scene. He makes a fair point about the feet being undamaged but the leverage you would have on such relatively small bolts would just shear them anyway. Its the ballast that holds the crane in place not the bolts.
We know it was being erected at the time of the incident. But also, remember it was very windy that day, without its full counterweight, they would not have been able to lower the jib to such angle where it didn't risk going over the top - which I think everyone agrees is what has happened here. Although in other cases of luffing cranes jibs being blown backwards, the crane tower usually suffers it and is left standing with the jib all bent back over. Here, maybe due to not being fully ballasted at the bottom, it didn't survive it.
One thing is for sure, whoever wrote the method statement will be having some sleepless nights if it turns out the crew did everything right by it. I've done the appointed persons course and it was THE hardest training course I've ever done. Nobody gets "talked" through it, its 5 full days of 8hrs of theory followed by a 6hr exam at the end. Over half the course didn't make it past the 3rd day and of the original lot who started, only 30% of us passed. So my point is, they don't take these things lightly and it will be either down to weather, base failure or the lads not following the method statement.
