You're not going back far enough! Why would you think 5 years is enough to draw conclusions? If you look back 15 years (long enough to include 9/11), then 50% of commercial aviation fatalities are due to terrorism.
50% of commercial aviation fatalities being due to terrorism, well maybe if you're counting the people on the ground, (I'm not interested enough in fatalities to do the maths on that.) Disregarding, the ground fatalities however:
There were for planes in 9/11. According to the list I last quoted, there were:
92 people on a Boeing 767200-ER
65 people on a Boeing 767-200
64 people on a Boeing 757-200
44 people on a Boeing 757-200
=> 265
If the fatalities are 100% in this most recent crash, it almost exceeds the 9/11 aviation fatalities by itself. Excluding this most recent incident - and just going from the wikilist again - you only have to go back to May 14th 2012 to exceed those casualties:
So, I find it highly unlikely that 9/11 does account for 50% of the commercial aviation fatalities in the last 15 years since it would account for less than 50% in the last 2 if it had occurred in those years.
-------------
As for the other points -
I'm interested in incidents concerning aircraft, and not the number of fatalities in general. The question isn't what is your chance of dying in a terrorist attack, the question is what sort of figure can we hang off this plane vanishing being due to a terrorist attack. 9/11 is four aircraft - from that point of view it doesn't change the figures much.
I could go further back and increase the confidence level but I don't really see the point. This isn't the sort of scenario where a more precise number seems likely to matter, even if I were out by an entire order of magnitude, it would make little difference. It would still be the thing to bet against it being terrorism.
I might bother to get a more precise number if I were putting money on it, but that would largely be a matter of knowing how much money to bet rather than the direction of the bet.
Basically, if you want a more precise number, you'll have to do the work yourself.
There were for planes in 9/11. According to the list I last quoted, there were:
92 people on a Boeing 767200-ER
65 people on a Boeing 767-200
64 people on a Boeing 757-200
44 people on a Boeing 757-200
=> 265
If the fatalities are 100% in this most recent crash, it almost exceeds the 9/11 aviation fatalities by itself. Excluding this most recent incident - and just going from the wikilist again - you only have to go back to May 14th 2012 to exceed those casualties:
2012
[...]
May 14 - 15 dead
June 29 - 6 dead
September 12 - 10 dead
September 28 - 19 dead
October 7 - 3 dead
November 30 - 6 dead
December 25 - 1 dead
December 29 - 5 dead
2013
January 29 - 16 dead
February 13 - 5 dead
April 29 - 7 dead
July 6 - 3 dead
July 7 - 10 dead
August 14 - 2 dead
October 3 - 15 dead
October 16 - 49 dead
November 17 - 50 dead
November 29 2013 - 33 dead
2014
February 16th 2014 - 18 dead
(+ 18 33 50 49 15 2 10 3 7 5 16 5 1 6 3 19 10 6 (- 21 6))
=> 273
So, I find it highly unlikely that 9/11 does account for 50% of the commercial aviation fatalities in the last 15 years since it would account for less than 50% in the last 2 if it had occurred in those years.
-------------
As for the other points -
I'm interested in incidents concerning aircraft, and not the number of fatalities in general. The question isn't what is your chance of dying in a terrorist attack, the question is what sort of figure can we hang off this plane vanishing being due to a terrorist attack. 9/11 is four aircraft - from that point of view it doesn't change the figures much.
I could go further back and increase the confidence level but I don't really see the point. This isn't the sort of scenario where a more precise number seems likely to matter, even if I were out by an entire order of magnitude, it would make little difference. It would still be the thing to bet against it being terrorism.
I might bother to get a more precise number if I were putting money on it, but that would largely be a matter of knowing how much money to bet rather than the direction of the bet.
Basically, if you want a more precise number, you'll have to do the work yourself.