If all you are interested in is the projected dimensions of the front pane then I would say that is kinda possible ... the resulting projection would be a diamond.
If I put the book so it is face-on ... center it on (0,0,0) with the x-axis to the left, y-axis up, and z pointing at the observer.
Height h is along y, width w is along x, and thickness t is along z. But we are only concerned with height and width - so ignore thickness.
We are interested in projections h' and w' in the x-y plane... so we are not worried about perspective that a camera would introduce.
If I rotate the book 60deg about the x axis, it's projection in the x-y plane will be w'=w, and h'=h/2
Can you rotate the already rotated figure so that w'=w/2 now, without changing h'?
You can certainly can just rotate it by 60deg about the y-axis to get w'=w/2 if you define w' to be the horizontal distance across the projection.
(The projection of the projection onto the x-axis.)
Defining w' to be the perpendicular distance between opposite sloping sides (like you'd normally do for a rhombus) - you'd need a different rotation to make w'=w/2.
But does it still make sense to call it a book of half width? Did "they" intend the book to remain rectangular (all angles at the vertices to be 90deg)?
Have you asked "these people" to tell you what transformation does what they claim?