You're trying to apply logic and reality to a movie. It's not supposed to be 100% realistic, it's called "willful suspension of disbelief" It's a story, not a factual account of something that really happened.
...
There is a difference between a willful suspension of disbelief, and a total abandonment of all brain functions. Movies are not fact, true enough, but when they are 0% realistic, it is difficult for all but the brain dead to suspend one's disbelief for the complete length of a feature film.
If we look at
2001: A Space Odyssey, there was some effort to introduce realism into the film (like a lack of sound passing through empty space, and a realistic attempt at dealing with gravity in space). Of course, they did not, and still do not, have computers like HAL, which is where the suspension of disbelief comes into play. But the film did not ask that one totally check one's brain at the door to be picked up after the film was over.
In the case of the new
War of the Worlds, the constant lack of realism was a constant reminder that one was watching a film, which prevents one from being totally immersed in the story. This means there was bad writing, causing a bad story, which makes for a bad film. They should never have shot the film with such a poor script. But, of course, the main point of film making is making money, not making great films (regardless of the constant propaganda to the contrary from Hollywood). How did it do at the box office? If they turned a good profit, then I am sure that its makers are happy, as they have achieved their real goal.