Okay, I can tell this is going to take awhile. Let's start with the first post.
"Before 9/11 we've had CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA, etc; but now they've been consolidated into DHS under premise that it would be easier/better/more efficient to collect and share information,"
The 15 members of the US intel community - of which you mentioned 5 above - have been reorganized under the DNI - (Director or directorate of National Intelligence, which is currently headed by fmr ambassador John Negroponte and former NSA director Michael Hayden) and not the DHS (Dept of Homeland Security). Secondly, this is mostly a top level reorganization. The DNI currently has something like 1500 members, which in DC bureaucracy is akin to about nothing. And while the agencies are working to coordinate, especially in the forms of the JTTF (joint terrorism task foce) and in the national threat assesment field, their respective database remain largely autonomous. The biggest change is that the Director of Central Intelligence (currently Porter Goss) is now no longer also the Director of Intelligence (Negroponte).
"From 'Patriot' bill to H.R. 418 - REAL ID bill - more government involvement and more personal freedom infringements."
Terrorism, as an issue addressed by Congress, prior to 9/11/01 was mostly legislated as a foreign, political phenomenon. As such, it was limited to regulations that mostly applied to foreign nationals (not naturalized US citizens or green card holders). What this translated into was that the various law enforcing branches of gov't were not allowed to use the same tools that they'd been using for half a century on organized crime enterprises (like Cosa Nostra) and drug trafficking networks (like the Medellin cartel) on alleged or suspected terrorists. This again was because until 2001 these terrorists, legislatively, were seen more as political figures than as national security threats. Although the Patriot Act grants US law enforcement the power to use various types of Elint, sigint, and other methods, these methods are variations on the same theme that the USG has been using for 50 years.
"The CIA has recruited and trained Bin Laden back in the 80's and got him to do their dirty bidding for years. Was he again hired by CIA to execute 9/11 attacks"
This is simply incorrect. It is not true and is a myth that has been propogated since 9/11 by those who've not looked into the facts. The fact is that the CIA was involved in Pakistan and Afghanistan in the 1980s (see Ghost Wars). Many of the actual documents pertaining to this involvement are now declassified (in part to address these myths) and are now available online from sites ending in .gov and .edu. They are .pdf scans of the actual documents that are blacked out in certain places. You can search for them on Google. In addition, and probably more reassuring to those who do not take the government's word, independent journalists have interviewed, researched, and written about the CIA's involvement in mujahedeen networks in the 1980s. The consensus, unaminously, by those who have actually been to Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Gulf states is that the CIA did not recruit, train, or even fund Osama bin Laden and his Office of Services (which was the precursor to his al Qaeda, the base). OBL's (osama bin laden) mentor, Sheik Abdullah Azzam, was I think a Palestinian who played a significant role in mediating the exchanges of Gulf Arabs to the various Afghan militias who were in Afghanistan doing the fighting. Although there are several notable exceptions, most of OBL and Azzam's important work was done in Pakistan, where they were predominately in a liaison role. OBL returned to Pakistan to found al Qaeda, which was to serve as a base for his continued worldwide jihad in the late 80s. While CIA agents have testified that some had heard (during the Soviet war) of a rich Saudi prince organizing Afghan Arabs, none said they trained or gave money to him. This is confirmed on numerous occasions, some by OBL himself, and is quite reasonable when you think that OBL, while a great organizer and leader, has no real weapons training (one of the CIA's roles was teaching folks how to use Stinger missiles) and already had a lot of money. Furthermore, when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, Saudi Arabia was very worried that Iraq, who had a superior military force, would simply move westward into KSA (kingdom of saudi arabia) and he thus offered his services and the business of his family - bin ladin construction - to militarize a lot of construction equipment and organize mujahid to defend KSA. the crown prince turned him down in favor of the US and NATO armies - a point which more than anything broke the back of the camel with OBL as the Western troops were infidels desecrating the holy land. From this point on, relations were hostile at best between OBL and the ruling family.
This was the first post alone. I'm not sure I even want to get into the others. I've got nothing to gain from attacking you or getting into a conspiracy argument, so I'll probably not even address them. But I will leave it at this: there are literally volumes of printed works on these issues - some were done by the USG, others by independent journalists not even from (or cozy with) the US. Please read these. Most of the conspiracy points that are raised in this thread, or that are going to be, are addressed and demystified in great detail in these books. I admit things at first appear to be very fuzzy, but in truth that was Pakistan in the 1980s. I will say that the strangest conspiracy point/coincidence/whatever that I have read is indeed this Buzzy Krongold (or whatever) shorting the UAL and AAL stocks. But even this, yes this, was addressed in the 9/11 Comission Report, which I am willing to bet few if any of you have read cover to cover. It's a good place to start. There will never be a full, completely convincing explanation of everything that has occurred, just like there will never be a full, complete history of everything that happened in WWII. But we must be prepared to bow to reason and Occam's razor when the facts point you in that direction. Theories about holograms, WTC real estate insurance, and Israeli commandos simply don't make sense. Not to mention that the literature supporting these theories is about enough to make up one or two (disputed) chapters in one of the literally hundreds of accreditted sources of information on this topic. But if it's 5 years or so later and I am still having to recount history for ya'll, it is most likely a moot point.
There was a lot that was known, but there was also a lot that wasn't known by the right people and a lot of dots that weren't connected. 
