Can Quantum Entanglement Make Faster- Than- Light Communication Possible?

Well, you have made a couple of statements that indicate to me that you don't understand what you are talking about when it comes to either Relativity or Quantum Mechanics.

For example you talk about the simultaneity of an event as seen by two observers. That in itself is nonsensical (you need two events, not two observers, to measure simultaneity) even before you consider the fact that it has nothing to do with the feasibility of faster than light transfer of information, or of the experiment that would show that it is possible.

Other readers can judge as they see fit.

Of course there is only one 'event'! I thought I made that clear. But that's the whole point which seems to escape you ! The 'faster than light' concept is an extrapolation drawn from 'simultaneous changing in complementary spin polarity as far one observer is concerned. But information transmission implies two (distant) observers and therefore two events...'transmission' and 'reception' ....for whom simultaneity or its extrapolation cannot apply. You fail to acknowledge that an 'event' is always an observation relative to a particular observer.

OK,

You are saying that there is one event. It is being observed by two observers. And you are saying that this one even is "simultaneous". Please explain what that means?

Let me explain to you why this is ridiculous. The word simultaneous means that two events happen at the same time. If you ask two different observers whether this one event "happened at the same time", they both will say "What the hell are you talking about?"

It doesn't matter how many observers you have, if you don't have two events to compare, the idea of "happening at the same time" doesn't make any sense.

You still don't get it. The OP about 'faster than light communication' is an extrapolation of the simultaneous complementary spin polarization of entangled particles. That is where the concept of 'communication' (about polarity shift) breaks down since communication implies two events which involve two observers. If you like, this explanation reflects the formal 'proof by contradiction' in logic.
Your admitted antipathy to 'philosophy' seems to be blinkering you to one of its more recent developments called 'deconstruction', in which the meaning of concepts always includes covert allusions to their antithesis. Secondly, contrary to a naive realist position it does matter how many observers there are since the 'event' is an act of personal observation albeit that local observers can verbally agree with each other about the 'nature' of the event (in the same way that we might agree to call the color of an object 'green', whereas someone from a different culture might not).And a third issue that scientists often fail to appreciate is that the first level of 'measurement' is the nominal level i.e. naming or assigning 'thinghood'. Other levels of measurement are based on that.