I've posted a bit on this since Grenfell since it "rekindled" my own investigation.

The first point I'd like to address is "due to fire." Some people will disagree, but I think this is a misconception. I feel like some of the WTC7 conspiracy theorists like to paint WTC7 as a completely undamaged building that collapsed SOLELY because of fire. The photo/video/eyewitness evidence suggest otherwise. One important thing that isn't often mentioned is all video angles of WTC7's collapse are from the North side of the building. The south side (that faced the WTC) was both on fire and obscured by the settling dust of the collapse.

So what is relevant about the south side? That's the side the WTC "fell on"

http://i.imgur.com/eMIUKG4.jpg

You be the judge:

http://i.imgur.com/e0KlMqY.jpg A 10+ story tall, 3 window wide corner of the building is significantly damaged

http://i.imgur.com/JCCkUln.jpg Another angle of that corner

http://i.imgur.com/a1bBx8D.png Yet another angle of the corner. I drew red arrows to point where windows appear to be missing.

http://i.imgur.com/QvzUc4F.jpg Another angle of the corner, admittedly less impressive - but one of the few that exists

http://i.imgur.com/dAxtKfR.jpg Most importantly, what's referred to as the "gash". After seeing this image it's hard to argue that the building collapsed in a single "controlled demolition". Part of the building collapsed when the full thing fell.

http://i.imgur.com/1E4Wrej.png Perspective/closeup of the gash (I can't verify the measurements are accurate)

Then witness testimonies.

Here's the best evidence that acknowledges the hole in video form.

Some quotes from firefighters that was published in firefighter magazine. Can't exactly verify they're authentic, but that's for you to decide.

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

A quote from a NYT transcript - .pdf warning

...Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did.

Another quote from Firehouse

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away? Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

Next is a little bit of my own narrative. I want to be clear that I'm interpreting this part of the evidence to provide my own persective.

WTC4: http://i.imgur.com/NgOKyPG.jpg This is a nearby building that the WTC also fell on. If you doubt that falling concrete/steel could significantly damage a steel building, think again. The entire building is crushed like an aluminium can. A diagram of where WTC4 is I suspect it would have been hit by the other tower falling.

Larry Silversteins "we're going to pull it" quote: I think pull it is in context to the firefighting operation, not "pulling" in reference to taking down the building.

Next to address your individual questions:

while on WTC the exterior walls were basically kept in tact

I think the pictures prove otherwise, refer back to them if this is still disputed.

Why is a 43 year old building, built in less time, has weaker material, and had a fire for 3x the duration of WTC 7 still stand, while with WTC 7 we saw the supports collapse simultaneously

Again, eyewitness testimonies/pictures suggest otherwise - if you accept the gash and damaged corner as true, you are acknowledging a two-series collapse. This video also debunks a simultaneous collapse if you don't consider the gash to be 'enough.' Pay attention to the small building on the top (dubbed the "penthouse"). That falls in on itself, which suggests whatever was beneath it on the South Side (where it was damaged) was also missing. My narrative would be that the south side collapsed first and the "controlled demolition" collapse is pretty much the remaining shell. Here's a rough, theoretical 3D modeling of how that might look if the cameras were on the south side (which would be followed by the rest of the building + penthouse collapsing). Also, a big difference is that the WTC7 was 47 floors while the other was only (I believe?) 27. That's almost double the height.

For full disclosure on where I am on the 9/11 conspiracy: I believe a plane crashed in a PN field, I believe a 747 hit the pentagon, and I believe the WTC fell due to planes. In regards to complacency: I don't believe that our senate/congress/President were complicit in an attack on our country. I believe the FBI had forewarning, but I don't believe it was anything that was taken seriously and it was lost in a pile of other threats. In regards to funding, I believe that money used by the CIA to destabilize the Middle East/Afghanistan ended up in the hands of 'terrorists.' I believe Saudi Arabia had a much larger role than our government acknowledges. I don't believe they thought it'd be used against us. In regards to post-9/11: I believe the government intentionally used it to funnel money to defense contractors/misled us into multiple wars. I've dabbled with other theories over the years, but ultimately I haven't seen enough evidence that I feel I'd be able to share in good faith. IE if I have my own doubts, I don't feel I have done my diligence enough to pass my own narrative to other people.

You have a very err unique perspective on 911. Respectfully, I disagree.

Physics can explain why wtc7 had to have fallen from controlled demolition. It doesn't matter how damaged the building was prior. It would not fall at near freefall speed and be completely gone from standing to rubble in under a minute without demolition. In the video of it falling, the Windows would not all shatter in two vertical lines equally separated from each other if this had been an organic collapse. It doesn't matter how much debris may have hit it or what corner the building was on fire It just would not have collapsed in that way.

The first building that was hit with the plane would not have collapsed into its own footprint either. If the beam where the plane hit, let's say 4/5 up the building, then if it broke there, the mass of the top would only have enough potential energy to take out its own mass, leaving the building still 3/5 tall, likely falling diagonal through the last 3/5 because it wouldn't have enough energy to destroy the rest of the building.

I wish more scientists could see what's right in front of them. How can you explain the hijackers passport being magically found on the street? That makes it all obvious to me that it was all a planned set up.

Thanks for opening your mind and at least giving my theory consideration even if you disagree :)

Physics can explain why wtc7 had to have fallen from controlled demolition.

Not sure I'll convince you if I haven't already, but I forgot to link this video. In my mind's processing of the data, it supports my multi-stage collapse theory (first the gash which happens long before the main collapse, the collapse which takes down the penthouse and leaves just the outer "skeleton", and lastly the outer skeleton which was captured on camera).

The relevant part of that video is in poorly edited screencap I made in paint. http://i.imgur.com/Jn6wgWG.png . If the entire building were to collapse in a controlled demolition from the bottom up, from my understanding of physics the trapezoid shape of the building would remain in-tact. Meaning, there'd still be horizontal support beams preventing the building from buckling like it did. However, that image either the building split in half and bent in on itself OR the building collapsed inward.

Here's my theory as to what happened. http://i.imgur.com/T163VOx.png . The area around the gash collapsed slowly, eventually taking the penthouse in, leaving just the skeleton of the building up. With no support, the building buckled inward until it cracked at the "ripple".

The point of my post is basically to clear up [what I believe to be] the misconception that WTC7 had no damage and it was just a fire that took it down. I believe that, at minimum, there was extensive damage in addition to the fire. If someone wants to break that down and argue the pictures are all fake that's fine with me and is just an opinion, but I see it hard to deny the corner damage/gash which - if they existed - makes a collapse a lot more plausible.

If the beam where the plane hit, let's say 4/5 up the building, then if it broke there, the mass of the top would only have enough potential energy to take out its own mass, leaving the building still 3/5 tall, likely falling diagonal through the last 3/5 because it wouldn't have enough energy to destroy the rest of the building.

As for that, I'll leave this image. You're correct in that the top DID break off. The problem was, when it broke off all of that weight had to go somewhere. It didn't just slide off [as it was still connected by steel beams that acted as guides]. Instead, it fell in like a chisel being hammered into a piece of wood through the grain, splitting the core as it got further in. And every beam that was in that core, split away from from the beams it was connected to. Remember: each floor can only support a certain amount of weight. Once the top 1/5th failed, the floor at the top of the 4/5ths all of a sudden had to support the entire weight of the top 1/5th. When that floor failed, the floor below it had to support the 1/5th + 1 floor. ETC., Seeing as that top was still connected support beams the path of least resistance was straight down.

This video shows the top bending and being "guided on the rails" EXTREMELY well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSS0DDqfm0 If you pause/unpause repeatedly in the first couple seconds and look at the breach on the left side, you can actually see the corners frame bend inward.

I believe a 747 hit the pentagon

Do you mean 757?

What are your thoughts on my claims?

Good summary!

You have a very err unique perspective on 911. Respectfully, I disagree.

Physics can explain why wtc7 had to have fallen from controlled demolition. It doesn't matter how damaged the building was prior. It would not fall at near freefall speed and be completely gone from standing to rubble in under a minute without demolition. In the video of it falling, the Windows would not all shatter in two vertical lines equally separated from each other if this had been an organic collapse. It doesn't matter how much debris may have hit it or what corner the building was on fire It just would not have collapsed in that way.

The first building that was hit with the plane would not have collapsed into its own footprint either. If the beam where the plane hit, let's say 4/5 up the building, then if it broke there, the mass of the top would only have enough potential energy to take out its own mass, leaving the building still 3/5 tall, likely falling diagonal through the last 3/5 because it wouldn't have enough energy to destroy the rest of the building.

I wish more scientists could see what's right in front of them. How can you explain the hijackers passport being magically found on the street? That makes it all obvious to me that it was all a planned set up.

I believe a 747 hit the pentagon

Do you mean 757?