You don’t buy into the Annunaki nonsense, surely.
The Sumerians regarded the Annunaki in various ways over the years, and the Akkadians/Assyrians and later the Babylonians did the same. Anything that came from Sitchin is hogwash, but regardless, I'm not aware of any texts that attribute much of anything to the Annunaki, other than internal struggles (like the theomachy found in Greek myths), right up to the 7th c BC.
Only if they piloted vimanas.
I'm agnostic on the matter. Granted, some of proponents of this theory can be a bit "out there", but to cavalierly and derisively dismiss them, as e.g. another poster said "anything that came from Sitchen is hogwash" is simply wrong.
He had his problems, but there are kernels of truth in his work.The same is true of the so-called "mainstream" archaeologists and scholars; they too often become so emotionally invested in their own or other colleagues' theories, or the "conventional consensus" of their peers that they will rabidly fight against anyone whose ideas or work challenges that consensus.
Scientists are human, after all, and subject to the same natural instinct to protect their turf. I remain skeptical but open-minded on the subject, but will always remember, from personal experience, that science and academia are far too often just as hidebound, dishonest and corrupt as our government. A good example of this academic/political rot are the rabid advocates of the scientific fraud called "climate change" (formerly global warming), or more specifically, "anthropogenic/man-made climate change".