My point is this: you claim the difference is solely due to distance from the building, and therefore use of zoom. You used your crude drawing as a reason to dismiss all other explanations, essentially calling everyone who didn't see your drawing as the total answer an idiot. But, although distance from the building may be and probably is A factor in the difference between the photos, there is obviously a difference in camera elevation also. Do you see the chandelier in photo 1 above the center doors? Yet you can't see it in photo 2. That means camera one could either be closer or lower. But, because the windows in photo 1 are smaller, the camera must be further away, leaving only one explanation as the primary reason for the discrepancy, and that is that the shot was taken from a lower elevation. The photos are obviously shot from 2 different distances, and although that would affect what can be seen above the roofline, it would not likely be as significant of a determinant as the camera elevation. But, rather than admit someone else might have an idea to explain the difference in the photos other than yours, or in addition to yours, you have commented on every other comment, telling everyone that they are wrong if they don't see your explanation as being THE answer. This is called "anchoring", and is a flaw in logic. In addition, your tone of superiority is offputting. Have a nice night.