I believe they crush technologies, but most of the things you mentioned aren’t true.

Beliefism and contradiction asserted.

There were no spaceships possible in the 1930s.

Foo fighters only showed up in the 1940s are you thinking? Or not even aware of those? Or the bell (“die glocke”)? Nor my earlier examples looked into? Just presuming? If so, how? By mistaking absence of evidence as evidence of absence?

Why crush that technology when they could have conquered the world with it?

LOL. Fun way to answer your own question.

It’s not possible to run cars on water.

Indeed. Any who attempt to, seem to die or disappear. … iirc, Stanley Meyers’ famous moment, running out of the restaurant from a meeting with some potential “investors”, shouting “THEY POISONED ME”, just before he died, seems to serve (intentionally or not) as a warning and disincentive to even try.

The thermodynamics just doesn’t make sense.

Have seen each of the methods of catalysis and can refute each? That’d be thoroughly educational|entertaining|enthralling to see.

[Just remembered before posting… didn’t one method use a combination of lasers and plasma… one of the cavitation methods… idk, been decades since looking into this stuff. Hazy tidbits of memories for the curious and studious to chase if they want. … (Perhaps futilely) hoping websearch not so censored as cannot find this stuff any more. ~ Had to dig 100s of pages deep into search results even back then.]

Even before learning more about the states of matter that water can get into (including recent stuff on it being two different liquid states simultaneously), the magnetic alignment method has fascinated me (~ in passing… I’ve run no tests ~ dear industry, pls leave me be. lol.). It would be great to share an exploration of the various ranges, of state conditionals; of energy levels, types, frequencies and wave shapes; of cavitation, aperture, geometry; of ortho water and para water, ratios thereof; of water isotopes; ratios thereof; of impurities, solutes, salinity, ionisation, pH; and so on. To really draw out the more complete matrix of water’s potential (~ at least in the mundane material utility sense). [/*dreamer*]

Anyways, the claims are out there. Mere nay-saying is an unsatisfactory replacement for refutation, especially amidst conflicts of interest and dogmatic world views that salaries depend upon. Closed minds are never wrong.