Part of the problem we have here is that an assumption is made that since the engine is interacting with air (causing thrust) that the wings are also interacting with the air. In this case, it would seem, both are not interacting with air. Only the engine is interacting with the air. The only thing that matters is relative wind. Does the airplane generate enough relative wind to fly without moving forward? If it does, please tell me why our own U.S. Navy launches fighters FORWARD off of the carrier, instead of creating a conveyor to launch from a stationary point. If we shut our engine down, and just let the belt run at our normal rotation speed, the airplane goes backward. It does so because it is connected to the belt at the wheels. Now, we fire up our engine and start adding power, we add enough power, and the aircraft accelerates enough, that we stop going backward. We are now stationary, and there is no relative wind over the wings. Without relative wind over the wings, we cannot ever hope to fly. The wheels are moving at rotation speed, however the airflow over the wings is nil. There has to be some airflow over the wings to create lift. Think of air as a stationary substance, which is a fair thought since the wind is zero. Somehow you have to make the air around the airplane reach rotation speed. Since the air is not moving, the airplane has to be moving through the stationary air at a speed equal to rotation.
All in all, this is just one of those rediculous college questions that could be avoided by majoring in business administration. It really doesn't matter one bit. I have yet to see a conveyor belt runway. If it were really possible, then in areas where the airport is getting closed in on all sides we could just have a conveyor belt. You'd have 747's getting in to Orange County (SNA).
HERE'S A GOOD THOUGHT: Maybe we could get the myth busters to try it. If anyone can make that happen, post it because I'd like to watch and see.