His "answers" are terrible.

How do we deal with a rejected takeoff - as the plane could be headed in any direction when it needs to climb.

His answer - As there is no end to the runway, a starting aircraft can keep rolling and come to a stop

If you don't understand what a rejected takeoff is (i.e., you don't land, so you can't "keep rolling"), how can we take this seriously?

That video of a plane descending, turning at an angle, trying to keep perfectly parallel to the runway, is enough to say "really bad idea". It looks like stunt flying.

Huh? I do agree that it's a bad idea for landing but I don't see your problem with a takeoff. There is no V1 speed with this runway as you have infinite roll space--and rejected takeoffs are normally below V1. (Although there's a video out there of a guy in a military jet rejecting above V1--he deliberately crashes the jet and punches out. Sensible--the plane had zero ability to fly, but neither did it have the ability to stop before overrunning into buildings. By retracting the gear and putting it into the runway he brought it to a stop faster, saving the buildings and the people in them.)

Right now arrivals and departures are based on aircraft arriving and departing in the same direction. Aircraft that could potentially take off in any direction means that you can't have any landing aircraft within miles of the airport until the departing aircraft has departed the area. This is the aviation example of driving the wrong way down the freeway.

Many major airports have multiple parallel runways to accommodate increased traffic (DFW, ORD, and LAX's runway layouts are perfect examples). This design eliminates the possibility of having multiple runways.

Any public entity spending any serious money on this idea needs to have their funding revoked ASAP.