Synfuels are made using H2 and CO2. In practice, they're just H2 with more steps. So while you can use them, it ends up being a trade-off between cost and how much you really need synfuels.

Yes, but synfuels are a drop in replacement of the current fuels, and they are net zero emissions. Hydrogen is nasty. Really, really nasty: in liquid form it can only be stored at impossibly low temperatures, it has a very low density (about 13 times less dense than water), it leaks easily, it creates frost (remember the o-rings from the doomed space shuttle). Building a new airplane is difficult enough, building that burns hydrogen instead of regular jet fuel is an enormous engineering challenge. The chance of us ever seeing a hydrogen-based airplane is exactly zero.

Synfuels are not a drop-in replacement. Jet-A has exacting standards, and it would be a serious chemistry challenge for synfuels to match Jet-A exactly. Most likely it would be possible but very costly.

Most of that stuff is engineering superstition at this point. Most problems regarding hydrogen were solved decades ago. BMW actually made a LH2 powered car and had no big problems (except limited range).

Frankly, you're just incredibly out of touch. We already are seeing H2 powered planes now, and a commercial jetliner powered by H2 should happen by 2030 or so. This very thread is about Airbus planning on building one.