My computer just crashed and I lost a very lengthy response which I will not try to reconstruct, so I apologize if my response is very short.
If Jesus sacrifice is not the New Covenant, than what is the New Coveant that Jeremiah and Isaiah spoke of?
You misunderstand me. I did not say that there isn't a New Covenant involving Jesus' sacrifice (as per Paul and others). What I was saying was that the "covenant" referred to in Daniel 9:27 is the covenant or agreement that Antiochus IV made with the Hellenizers, which is mentioned later in ch. 11 and in 1 Maccabees. Just because the word "covenant" occurs in a given text doesn't mean it necessarily refers to God's covenant with Israel. The word simply refers to a legally-binding agreement. In fact, in ch. 11 God's covenant is referred to as the "holy covenant". The covenant that Antiochus made with the Hellenizers is in a sense a blasphemous covenant substituting for God's covenant, as its whole purpose is to force Jews to break the holy covenant. Such actions by Antiochus are part of the reason why the author of Daniel described him as magnifying himself greater than the God of gods. He dared to replace God's covenant with his own.
Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus and his armies in 70ad, a historical fact. Why would the bible leave out such a disastrous event for God's land if Daniel 9:26 is not speaking of Titus and the Jerusalem destruction??
Jerusalem was also attacked by Antiochus' army, people massacred, and the Temple defiled and plundered, a historical fact. It is this event that Daniel is referring to. This is made crystal clear by ch. 11, which describes the whole career of Antiochus Epiphanes and what he did to the Jews and to the Temple.
Jerusalem was also attacked by Titus in AD 70, it was even more brutally attacked by Hadrian in the 130s (razed to the ground and turned into a Roman city), it was attacked by the Persians in 614 and by the Arabs in 638, and the scene of Crusader battles in 1077, 1099, 1187, it was sacked in 1244 and 1259 by the Turks and Mongols respectively, and so on. It has seen many battles and wars over the years. But the one that is before the mind of the author of Daniel is the campaign of Antiochus Epiphanes. Chapter 11 leaves no doubt about this because it describes what Antiochus did in minute detail.
also who is the HE that sends the PRINCE to destroy? if the Prince is the antichrist, than who is the HE? If the HE is the antichrist, than who is the PRINCE?
The text is corrupt here, as in many other places. This is obvious from the fact alone that the anointed one who is destroyed (i.e. Onias III) cannot be the same person who then attacks Jerusalem. R. H. Charles suggested that the MT yshchyt "shall destroy" should be amended to yshcht "shall be destroyed" so that the passage would read (with the LXX-Theodotion): "The city and the sanctuary shall be destroyed, together with a prince, and his end shall come (kai exei he sunteleia autou)". The original version of the LXX (the Old Greek) had: "A king of Gentiles will destroy the city and the sanctuary, with the anointed one". If the reference is to Onias III, this fits very well with history in that Onias III was murdered in the same year as Antiochus' first attack on Jerusalem, in which he plundered the Temple and massacred many Jews (cf. Daniel 8:9-10, 11:28; 1 Maccabees 1:21-28). On the other hand, most translations favor the MT, e.g. the critical version by Collins: "The host of a ruler who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary". This reading would also refer to the same series of events -- the attack on Jerusalem by Antiochus' army in 171 BC (which was the beginning of the 70th week in Daniel's chronological scheme), and the even worse attack of 169 BC during which Antiochus "plundered the city, burned it with fire, and tore down its houses and its surrounding walls" (1 Maccabees 1:31).
If Daniel's Seventieth Week is not about Jesus, than who is the Messiah spoken of in:
Septuagint Daniel 9:25 And thou shalt know and understand, that from the going forth of the command for the answer and for the rebuilding of Jerusalem until Messiah the prince there shall be seven weeks
Bear in mind that this first anointed one is placed at the end of the first 7 weeks, and there are 62 weeks separating him and the last week. It is thus impossible that he is the same person as the anointed one that is cut off in v. 26. It is often suggested that this first "anointed prince" is Cyrus, for in Isaiah 45:1 Yahweh refers to him as "my anointed". But this is unlikely in the case of Daniel, which instead has Babylon falling to the historically unknown Darius the Mede with "Cyrus the Persian" not showing up some time later. Neither does Daniel refer to Darius as an "anointed". I think the best explanation is that the term refers to a High Priest, as it does in v. 26 (cf. Leviticus 4:3, 5, 16, 6:22, 2 Maccabees 1:10; Testament of Levi 16:1-4 which refer to the High Priest as "anointed"). The first 7 weeks would thus come to a close with the restoration of worship under Joshua, son of Jozadak (Ezra 3:2), the first High Priest after the return from exile (cf. Haggai 1:1; Zechariah 3:1).