I have been aware of the paper by Legge and Stutt for some time. I found the paper to be logical. I saw that the discrepancy between the radalt and the pressure data was so large that even if they had made some error in calculation, there was no way the two readings could be in agreement. So it boils down to which is the more reliable.
Everyone on this thread confirms that the radalt will be accurate in this case because the plane is not tilted, is not closing too rapidly with the terrain and, close to impact, is not passing over significant buildings or steeply sloping ground.
Everyone on this thread assures me that there are numerous reasons why the pressure data could be corrupted. The plane is certainly flying faster that its permitted speed, and that is a likely cause of error.
So it seems rather odd that you favour the pressure altitude over radalt.
I remind you that the people on this thread are mostly experienced pilots. I suggest you reconsider the evidence, consult with pilots and mathematicians who are not members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and see what you can come up with if you start afresh.