I think there are probably areas about which we can agree. Others perhaps less so.
When you used bold to highlight "his opinion". Whilst I accept he was the author, it seems pretty clear from the rest of his remarks, that this opinion was shared by other senior operators. In other words, it was their opinion.
To be honest, my greater concern, as I have stated, is that the construction of the theory itself, relies too much on 'modelling', simply because there are virtually no reliable FACTS!
'Models' are not 'records'. They are a hypothetical creation, not a fact.
I personally believe that the suggestion that they were involved in some kind of high speed, low rate of climb, IMC abort, to be stretching credibility to the limit!
It doesn't mean I have the answers. Which is precisely the position PC found himself in (though he does offer some thoughts). But that doesn't mean we have to jump to conclusions!