I read your posts Madman...

Please tell me where you pointed out the flaw in my argument (from page 37 on). I don't see that flaw in my argument pointed out anywhere.

I see where you claim the arguments for flight are flawed, but not actually pointing out the specific flaw in my argument.

Just saying the argument is flawed doesn't make it so.

Oh, by the way...
Your "aerospce engineer" has a flaw in his/her explanation.
The engineer says that the ground is moving in relation to the wing, but that the air is not moving in relation to the wing.
Either the plane is moving up the conveyor relative to the ground (flaw - airplane moving forward relative to the ground is moivng forward relative to the air creating airspeed and thus lift)
or the aerospace engineer is now calling the conveyor the ground...qand assuming the airplane remains stationary to a point on the ground next to the conveyor...to which I bring back the point the plane can not be stationary on the conveyor relative to the ground. For proof, re-read the argument I make from page 37 on...

So I'll ask you a second time in this post: Where exactly is my argument flawed?