I think you've misunderstood, and that you're actually in agreement with Aloha.
Aloha's statement is that even in the window from 10 Sept. 2001 to 10 years forward, worldwide air travel-based fatalities due to non-terrorist events is higher than due to terrorism.
In other words, even massaging the numbers to include the worst case, Aloha's statement "its statistically less likely to die from terrorism then it is from a normal plane crash" is true.
My own research shows that if the window is 3 years wide or wider then there's no way for Aloha's statement to be false. Further, I showed that even if restricted to the US commercial aviation, that statement is true if you talk about the last 40 years. (Include general aviation and it's about a 5-6 year window.)
Aloha's statement is that even in the window from 10 Sept. 2001 to 10 years forward, worldwide air travel-based fatalities due to non-terrorist events is higher than due to terrorism.
In other words, even massaging the numbers to include the worst case, Aloha's statement "its statistically less likely to die from terrorism then it is from a normal plane crash" is true.
My own research shows that if the window is 3 years wide or wider then there's no way for Aloha's statement to be false. Further, I showed that even if restricted to the US commercial aviation, that statement is true if you talk about the last 40 years. (Include general aviation and it's about a 5-6 year window.)