There are many NT passages which show that Zechariah 14 cannot possibly be fulfilled the way Premils typically interpret it, which is that they see it as indicating mortal survivors of Christ's second coming (contradicts Matthew 24:35-39, Luke 17:26-30, 1 Thess 5:2-3, 2 Thess 1:7-10, 2 Peter 3:10-12, Rev 19:17-18) and as teaching that animal sacrifices and offerings will be reinstated (contradicting Hebrews 8-10) and nonsense like that.
No animal sacrifice reinstated at all. That is an excuse.
"the Lord will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles."
The feast of Tabernacles is not about animal sacrifices. Under the OT Law, there could be animal sacrifices, but those were abolished. Not the feast of Tabernacles which many still acknowledge to this very day without animal sacrifices. We celebrate the Passover, but no animal sacrifices. So your excuse is a moot point.
Revelation 19 is not the Second Coming, or that chapter would contradict all the other Scripture you provided. You do not even acknowledge your own contradictions.
Nothing you propose has been fulfilled about Zechariah 14. Oh wait, you totally avoided the question, and gave a bunch of excuses. Then called your answer, nonsensical.
So you have no answer, but nonsensical excuses.
I am a premil, and even I can understand that Revelation 19 is not the Second Coming. The Second Coming happened over 42 months, at the least, prior to the battle of Armageddon. I agree that all are dead at Armageddon, but that is not the Second Coming by any means, not even according to your version of Revelation 20. Revelation 19 certainly does not fit in 2 Peter 3.
You have contradiction between 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 19. You have contradiction between Revelation 19 and Revelation 20.
2 Peter 3 does not say pass away. Revelation 19 never says pass away. Revelation 19 says no one is consumed by fire. 2 Peter 3 has no one consumed by fire, only the works on earth are consumed by fire. That would be man's works, not God's works.
Zechariah 14 never states the earth passes away, because nothing passes away at the Second Coming, except man's work are all burned up. Matthew 24:35 says heaven and earth pass away, but not when, nor in conjunction with the Second Coming.
Tell me, did heaven and earth pass away in your sense at the Flood, or in the common sense that there was a physical change in heaven and earth? Because if you say, of course, they did not pass away, then your sense is not the same as how Jesus compared the Second Coming to the Flood.
There was a new heaven and earth after the Flood, because of the physical change of all the water that was above heaven was now on the earth. The old heaven and earth passed away in the sense of this physical change.
So the baptism of fire will cause the old heaven and earth to pass away, in a physical change once again, at the Second Coming, but still the same creation. Not an entirely new creation as what happens between Revelation 20 and Revelation 21. They don't pass away then either, so passing away is simply a physical change in appearance. The earth goes through a physical cosmetic change. John said they flee away at the end, but that means he could not see them any more, as only God and the LOF existed in the view John saw. John saw two perspectives that take place at the same time. But humans will only experience one of those perspectives. Most of the dead will only experience being judged and tossed into the LOF. They will not experience heaven and earth changing. Only those made alive with eternal life will see the old creation in one instant, and then the next thought, there will be the next creation. Those alive will not see the perspective of only God and the LOF.
For some reason you view these chapters in Revelation as just some symbolic framework, with your own inserted interpretation, and fail to see what is literally taking place. Then you see only one actual event, because you conflate many verses on various events, into a single perspective, that causes contradictions.