How big was the temple compound and Fort Antonia altogether?
    a. Josephus says the Temple Mount was "six furlongs around, including fort Antonia" A furlong was approximately 600 feet long.
    b. According to Josephus the Temple compound by itself was a square 4 furlong around, that is approximately 600 X 600 square
    c. Fort Antonia was also a square of 600 X 600.
    d. The combined temple compound and fort Antonia compounds were connected forming a rectangle approximately 1200 x 600 feet.
    e. According to Josephus there was a man cut moat between Fort Antonia and the of Bezetha hill  (new city) separating the two hills.

In a plea of Josephus to the Jews he quoted an old Jewish prophecy that said "When the Temple becomes four-square once again then will the temple and city be destroyed." By the destruction of Fort Antonia the temple had once again become four-square and he begged them to make peace with the Roman's before it was to late. Of course they refused.

1. Size
I have taken the layout for each of the theories and applied Josephus' dimensions in the form of a red rectangle.  Josephus wrote that the moat was between the For Antonia and the new city Bezetha.  Kaufman's theory would actually have the northwest corner of the Temple compound in the moat.  Ritmeyer's location shows the moat to be alongside Fort Antonia and no moat between the Fort and Bezetha.  In Sagiv's theory the moat is in the proper place. In Martin's theory it is apparent that For Anontia would have been located on very low ground rather than on the highest high as Josephus declared it to be.

2. Water source
In the first two theories the water source for "living water" (running water), to cleanse the Priest's court daily is many meters lower than where they have placed the Temple. This means there was no water supply to those locations other than cisterns, which was not running water.   In Sagiv's layout, which places the Temple  much lower on the hill, the aqueduct would have ended next to the Temple platform.  Which makes this location plausible.  With Martin's theory he relies on the Gihon Springs as a living water source. However this water would have to be hauled to the platform and is most unlikely.

There is one more theory for the placement of the past Temples, the Robertson Theory.  Which I show at the bottom of this page.
 

.North-Kaufman Theory.

..Dome of Rock-Ritmeyer Theory

South-Sagiv Theory

............
 

................................................................Not on Temple Mount-Martin Theory

In the Robertson theory not only is the Western Wall a section of the Temple wall, but the aqueduct and existing underground water system brings the living water to the Priest's court.  The moat is between Fort Antonia and the city Bezetha.  Fort Antonia would have been situated on the highest of the hills as recorded by Josephus.  The ruins on the top of what is referred to as Ophel Hill fit into the layout. and so do the underground structures below the surface of the Mount.

This web site contains all the evidence to prove the Robertson Theory to the south.