This is some Apollo hoax level photographic analysis, I must say.
That's utter nonsense. Without detailed information about the precise orientation of the camera, you can't tell if the floor is sloping one way or another. From the same location, you can orient the camera in different ways on successive shots to create the impression that the floor is sloping in different directions.
The first image is not in focus as well as the second, causing the edges of the extinguisher to be less distinct, causing the illusion that it's slightly narrower. And I see that other people have already cited the Father Ted perspective example.
Nonsense. If you hold a straight edge, like a piece of paper, along that line in photo 1, it shows that it runs under the car, to the inside of the right wheels, exactly like in photo 2.
You appear to be noting that the hood seems to have a gap between it and the front valence. Didn't your expert car salesman show you how to open the hood? When you pull the release, it raises just enough to let you get your hand in and manually release the catch. Isn't it likely that the driver, upon realizing that that distressing smell was coming from his vehicle, came to a stop and pulled the release, intending to inspect the engine, but after getting out realized that the vehicle was on fire and decided to go for an extinguisher instead? Doesn't that seem like a perfectly reasonable possibility that doesn't involve sinister foreign influences? Or is that the problem?
That can happen when you have a photo with better focus taken from nearer the subject.
This is, by far, the most amusing part of your "analysis". The idea that it must be a fake because the informational signage looks just a little too suspiciously "airporty" is priceless.
