Vesselin,
I think I already answered your questions in my comments, if you care to read them more carefully. Here's a recap of my answers.
Special relativity (SR) and all of its many macroscopic manifestations (including all the examples you pointed out), are nothing but the statement that the Minkowski metric applies to the space-time events described by SR. More specifically SR says nothing at all about whether physical objects should exist continuously in space-time, whether physical objects are 3-D, 4-D, or 3N-D. All SR says is that given two space-time events with coordinates (x1,y1,z1,t1), (x2,y2,z2,t2), the space-time interval S between them, given by:
S^2 = c^2 (t2-t1)^2 - (x2-x1)^2 - (y2-y1)^2 - (z2-z1)^2
should be invariant in all inertial reference frames. This is all that SR, by itself, says.
To emphasize again, SR, by itself, says absolutely nothing about the possible composition of rods and clocks, baseballs or rubber duckies.
To me, the logical flaws in your arguments are as follows.
You assumed:
1. SR, by itself alone, is sufficient to describe physical objects completely.
2. Physical objects have continuous existence in space-time, just like standard rods and clocks in SR.
based on these assumptions, your arguments and claims follow.
I counter that your assumptions 1 and 2 are unphysical because:
1. SR is not sufficient to describe physical objects completely, because it neither explains nor takes into account quantum phenomena. Quantum field theory (QFT) is currently the best candidate we have for description of physical objects.
2. Objects like the idealized rods and clocks in SR surely do not exist in the real world because real rods and clocks are composed of collection of atoms and molecules which can only be described by QFT.
And since your assumptions are unphysical, so are all conclusions that follow from them.
To me, this is sufficient refutation for your claim that the block universe view must be correct because SR says so.
But I guess you won't be satisfied with my answer because I've already repeated it many times in my comments. So even though I don't think it should be necessary I'll discuss in detail one of your experiments, namely the relativity of simultaneity experiment with relatively moving rods, lights and cameras.
The elementary flaw in your argument in this case is this: You assumed that whatever the in-sync B-cameras record in a single instant of B-time, must have occurred "all at once", but this is not true. The basic lesson of SR is that we cannot talk meaningfully about two events happening "all at once" unless the space-time coordinates of the two events coincide. The B-cameras do not all reside at the same space-time coordinate, and thus it's meaningless to say that whatever they record happened "all at once". And thus it's meaningless to say that the past-present-future of the A-rod, as recorded by the B-cameras, happened "all at once".
Note that I'm just using basic SR to refute your claim in this example, there's no need even to invoke the quantum nature of matter.