Did someone say "aerodynamicist"?
OK, let's start at the beginning. The story provided is that an aircraft, in essentially level flight encounters an "updraft", pitches UP some 20-25 degrees with no changes of significance to 'g' or to altitude.
The mechanism of encoutering a shear in the atmosphere are as follows:
As the aircraft enters the region of the gust, the angle of attack (and sideslip, but we're concerned here with a gust in the symmetric plane) are affected, because the aircraft's airspeed and angles are a result of the inertial velocity (which is very slow to change) and the velocity of the air mass, which undergoes an abrupt change.
If an aircraft were to encounter an upwards or downwards moving air mass, the effect would be negligible on airspeed (for most practical combinations of airspeed and gust speed, at least for an airliner type) and significant on angle of attack. The increased movement of the airmass would be manifested as an instantaneous change to the aircraft angle of attack (and would be evident on any AoA metering instrument, such as stall vanes). For an UPDRAFT, there would be an instantaneous increase in the angle of attack; for a DOWNDRAFT there would be an instantaneous decrease in the angle of attack. If one were to assume 50kt instantaneous gust and a 400kt (TAS) one would see an angle of attack change of approximately 7 degrees in the appropriate direction. One would also experience a corresponding 'g' bump as the gust was entered and the 'edge' of the gust passed over the wing. (Since it's a sharp-edged event, the AoA sensors on the nose will 'see' the gust before the wing)
Now, consider the natural aerodynamic response of an aircraft to an instantaneous change in angle of attack. All aircraft are STABLE in flight. Therefore the effect of that stability is for the aircraft to pitch down, or up, so as to reduce the alpha 'spike'. Therefore, an aircraft will aerodynamically pitch DOWN following a sharp-edged updraft, and pitch UP for a downdraft. Any other behaviour would result in an aircraft which had divergent pitch stability and was, essentially, unflyable.
Therefore I simply fail to understand the mechanism you are proposing which would pitch an aircraft nose-up following an updraft.
The centre of lift argument is fallacious - what matters is the neutral point, which will not be moved about by updrafts or downdrafts.
...but, anyway, let's imagine that an aircraft somehow ends up in a 25 degree nose high attitude in level flight relativbe to the earth.
In the absence of any wind component, this implies a 25 degree angle of attack. For any commercial clean wing, this is a stalling angle of attack; there should be stall warnings going off, possibly pushers firing and all kinds of similar activity. None of this is mentioned, therefore one must conclude that the aircraft is at a significantly lower angle of attack. The only way to achieve this is by changing the relative wind to add a significant DOWNDRAFT component, which allows the velocity vector relative to the airmass to more closely approximate the direction of the nose, while still allowing level flight relative to earth. Since this is also the same component consistent with the pitch up behaviour, I see no mystery.
Incidentally, it is theoretically possible for the stalled aircraft to be maintaining level flight in an updraft, if the rate at which the aircraft is falling out of the sky like a brick is matched by the updraft. This is not only inherently unlikely, and would require some rather impressive post-stall manoeuvrability more commonly associated with e.g. Sukhoi-27s at airshows, but still provides no explanation for how the aircraft got to a post-stall attitude in the first place.
Frankly, the reason why "the industry" believes this to be an impossible scenario as described is because it conflicts with the fundamental longitudinal design of every aircraft built.