I see nothing in your PDF that convinced me that the official report is any way in error.
The CAB report says the plane slid tail-first and right side up. The pictures show the plane tail-first and upside down. Do you accept the CAB report on that item?
You agreed that the railroad tracks appear to be hit by engine four. The ALPA report says the number four prop left the scars on the tracks. Do you accept the ALPA report on that item?
The ALPA report requires a longitudinal axis rotation of 60 degrees clockwise and then 330 degrees counterclockwise all in 1.4 seconds. Do you accept that scenario? (That's in the Dec 18 version, by the way.)
For example, you contradict yourself in detailing possible 'g' forces and then assume that some pax survived these non survivable forces based on 'witness reports'.
The acceleration and rotation forces were lethal in the forward fuselage. No one survived there longer than a half second, far as I can see, and no screams came from there. I put the forward fuselage and main fuselage discussions in separate sections so there would be no confusion about which I was discussing. I didn't contradict myself.
The only report I found was a woman claiming 'I swear I heard passengers screaming before the plane hit the ground'. Just not possible.
It's not credible that anyone heard screaming before the forward fuselage broke off. Until then there were at least two running engines. The Morning Tribune says Mrs. Trapp heard a thump and then heard screams, so that would be after the forward fuselage broke off and there were then no engines. The plane was briefly a glider, with the fuselage front open to the air. Mrs. Trapp reported hearing screams after running out into the yard, which would have taken a few seconds. So these screams would be coming from the aft fuselage after it came to rest.
The official report is quite clear, to me, that the angle of bank was obtained/confirmed from the cut high tension lines, by saying, "severing the lines at an angle of about 70 degrees from the horizontal".
The CAB report is the source of your quotation, but it doesn't assert that the lines were measured, or even strongly imply it. Whether or not they measured the lines, the wording you quoted might have been the same either way. It's not explicit.
Opposed to this position is the remaining right wing and the prop marks. It's not possible for engine three to leave prop marks while banking steeper than about 30 degrees, when the wing remains intact nearly to engine four.
I'll take geometry over witness statements any day.