That quote you included states that when computing aerodynamic forces you use dynamic pressure. That seems to contradict what you're writing, doesn't it?
No, it doesn’t. Tradition and convenience dictates that aerodynamic coefficients are referenced to dynamic pressure, in expressions like: Lift=cL*½ρV²*S. Because of that arbitrary definition of (lift) coefficient, ½ρV² must be used to calculate (lift) force from that coefficient. What many simplistic introductions don’t explain, is the variation of that coefficient with Mach number (and sometimes with Reynolds number).
The difference between the pitot tube and the airplane is that the air flow around the airplane doesn't get slowed to zero, excluding the boundary layer. It makes sense that there would be compressibility, and expansion, of the air depending on which location it's at on the airplane but …
Actually, the airflow is slowed to zero at the stagnation points, such as the nose of the radome or the leading edge of a straight wing. But that is really unimportant, because the forces on the airplane are the result of pressures all around the airplane, and in real air all changes of pressure from the undisturbed static pressure are subject to compressibility.
I don't think the effects would be nearly as drastic as the difference between CAS and EAS.
Have another look at my graph and think about it. For the data shown in this example, the effect is greater than the difference between CAS and EAS when Mach is greater than about 0.6.
EDIT: Below M.6 the effect is only 50% of that predicted by the Prandtl-Glauert model.
EDIT 2: To borrow from another thread: If your theory doesn't fit the experiment (flight test evidence) - it's WRONG!