Jet aircraft would be the worst type of aircraft to demonstrate this problem.

Somehow I realize this debate would not exist if somebody say 'Hey! Conveyor belt is the worse method of keeping a plane stationary'

after putting some thought of what you mentioned, i think i finally understood your point.

so assuming i get your point right, we're talking about..........

conveyor belt moving backwards at X speed. Free wheel also will spin at that speed to counter belt's backward movement. that effectively nullifies the speed, while the propeller is still giving the thrust. if that's the case, then it's clear that in the end as long as the thrust provides forward movement, the plane will take off when the air pressure generates sufficient lift.

short version - the free wheel spins to the speed of the conveyor belt, reducing the total effect of the conveyor belt on the plane's forward motion.

i don't think you get what i was saying. btw never once did i mention using wheel to move forward.

try to understand what me and bgeh talked about in this page, we've come to an agreed understanding already.

i'll try to make it even more simple

the counter movement of the conveyer belt at the same speed of the thrust has no effect on the plane as the contact point between the plane and the belt is the wheel, where the wheel will spin according to the speed of the belt thus having little to no effect on the thrust.

lol.. we got some example which plane no need wheel to fly like amphbia plane and ski plane... 
The plane need moving air at it wings to produce lift... now thats engine job to provide the force...

i thought myth buster already confirmed this that it can take off?

No fantagero, read the previous explainations. And no, they don't need to be physicists to show something. Physicists do not hold a monopoly on truth in physics.

Edit: The point is that pretty much all the replies here are aware that the critical condition for takeoff is airflow over the wings, but the point of this conveyor belt is to throw this possibility of the airplane moving relative to an observer not on either the belt on the plane, but say on the airport, at which the air is still, relative to this observer, into doubt. The condition for flight is then reformulated in the following question: Does the plane move at all relative to this observer? That then tells you if the condition for flight is achievable and flight occurs.

Try read before posting. For godsake, it's only 5 pages. We don't have that much amount of patience to type it over and over again.

fantagero: try look up mythbuster member profile before making a fool of yourself.

No offense bro

The thrust from the running engine is acting on stationary air. Did the conveyor movement affect or disturb the air?

Hate to repeat the post. Hereby I repost my explaination again. 

Oh trust me, it can, and in the case of the airplane, it probably will. We don't have anything like those 'free spinning wheels' things I've been harping on so much about, and the weight of the plane is bound to cause some flex in the conveyor belt, which breaks the approximation. There's also the problem of having no perfectly flat surface, having surface imperfections will give you vastly different coefficients of frictions, etc, etc.

But we've always worked things out by making simplifying assumptions (e.g. you assume a brick won't act nuts and deforming like a piece of rubber or plasticine, but for all you know it might just happen. We make approximations by calculating its tensile stress/strain, etc. etc. under certain conditions, while if you really wanted to know it's full behaviour we would need to calculate the Schrodinger equation for all the atoms in the surrounding potential (approximately 10^26 ish atoms, and associated potentials), etc, etc.)

They're models as of now, and will await some experimental confirmation, but aren't you also hypothesizing like all of us here, just trying to use the power of argument to win us over?

[read my previous arguments: You will see that the conveyor belt has absolutely no way of cancelling out the motion of the plane unless the friction generated by this conveyor belt is so large as to cancel out the thrust of the plane completely (again, this is probably a first order approximation), which in reality, tends not to be the case (remember, friction is not proportional to the relative velocities the bodies move past each other, but just the normal force that one body applies on the other)]

Or try a thought experiment: Imagine instead a plane landing on the conveyor belt at a velocity a, and a conveyor belt moving backwards at a velocity -a. Will the plane's motion be stopped the moment it lands? If so, why, or why not?

Now, we upgrade the experiment a bit. We put a conveyor at the bottom. By running the airplane on a conveyor, the engine actually create thrust onto the hull. Despite whatever the ground speed maybe, the thrust generate force onto the stationary air. If the ground travel at light speed yet the air above it remain stationary, the thrust will generate force onto the air, unlike car which generate thrust onto the ground. So, the airplane will just keep moving forward.