viz.

My screen size allowed me to see the image without the Twin Towers proportion, that is, I saw it first not as a citation of terror, but of smoke stack pollution (the second image's intention, I think). The visual is very strong, but it's worth considering the reliance of the image on the text. The above response is right, terror and tobacco provide a pithy rhetorical phrase, but sans the text, the image has the plausible deniability of invoking multiple cultural cues.

But with the cue, it's something different. If we accept the tobacco industry as nefarious, it's a plausible analogy, but even then, the comparison doesn't hold up under scrutiny. The image works on visual similarity, but the visual is, as is often the case, overly simple. The categories of victim and agressor or threat are much more complicated than can be suggested by the image. It does the right kind of work for the anti-smoking group, but the wrong kind of work culturally. Which may make the impluse to test the image the most intriguing part of the image, as it suggests an ethos of the image in terms of its circulation, a category that is under-explained in a lot of visual work.