Yes, World Trade Center building 7 fell due to controlled demolition, there are many reasons why we can expect this to be so.
1.) Free fall speed was achieved after global collapse was initiated, indicating complete failure of all support structure.
This is an important point because it proves without any doubt that the failure of the central column could not account for the speeds attained by the failure of the rest of the building.
If any of the other columns in the building resisted gravity to any measurable degree, then the building could not have fallen at free fall speed, by definition. That would necessarily mean that the other 23 interior columns stopped offering any resistance to gravity after the single column under the east penthouse collapsed, and the collapse of all exterior walls initiated (The entire perimeter collapsed simultaneously).
To clarify, even if you accept that there was only free fall in "Stage 2" as NIST claims (Because they start counting when the penthouse falls.), everything I have said is just as valid because once global collapse begins, nearly every column that supported the perimeter walls must have been entirely (not partially) destroyed. Even only a handful of undamaged columns would have prevented free fall and likely would have resulted in asymmetric collapse.
In his video showing free fall collapse, David Chandler shows a margin of error of 0.456, or about 5%. This number I think is very pessimistic, but if we take it at face value, this means that if any combination of columns were able to withstand 6% of the force of gravity, this would have been measured. There were 42 columns in the building which account for the resistance to gravity. We will assume that every floor is at full load bearing capacity, that each has a safety factor of at least 2, and that they are all equally burdened.
Under this scenario, if half of the columns were destroyed, there would have been no collapse. If ~6% of the remaining 21 columns were undamaged, this would have resulted in asymmetrical collapse and/or a measurable decrease in the acceleration of collapse. That number comes out to 1.26. So it is beyond any shadow of a doubt that 3 or so undamaged columns would have prevented free fall to a measurable degree and/or an asymmetric collapse.
the New York Building Code of 1892 specified a safety factor of 4:1. -Pg. 172 Rise of the New York Skyscraper: 1865-1913
2.) The central column(s) failed first and rapidly.
It is clear from the fall of the penthouse that central columns in the building failed before global collapse. This is suggestive of controlled demolition for two reasons;
a.) It is common to destroy the central columns first to avoid collateral damage, and in this case would be done to avoid visibility.
b.) Falling debris did not damage the central structure of the building, and fires could not have destroyed, or targeted, column 79.
The initiating local failure that began the probable WTC 7 collapse sequence was the buckling of Column 79.
-NIST NCSTAR 1A
Additionally, the column could not have failed rapidly. At best the central column could have been weakened by the fires, and initiated a slow collapse of the penthouse. (Though fires have never caused this to happen in history.)
This is because a hydrocarbon based fire will take about 7.5 minutes to get a room to 1000 degree's Celsius (Because of fireproofing, and steel's high thermal conductivity, it would take much longer to heat the steel to the temperature, if it happens at all). This gradual increase in temperature corresponds to a gradual reduction in strength and therefore a gradual collapse.
3.) Larry Silverstein was talking to his insurance company about destroying Building 7 in a controlled demolition, according to second hand witness Jeffrey Shapiro.
This would have been impossible to prepare that day, and suggests it had already been prepared before 9/11.
4.) Thermitic material was found in the dust of the World Trade Center building collapses, as well as iron spheres.
Iron spheres could only have been made by temperatures far in excess of the capabilities of diesel, jet fuel, or office fires (Except under highly controlled conditions). The evidence has been published in a peer reviewed journal seven years ago by professionals in their fields and has to this day never been refuted by another peer reviewed paper. In fact it has been corroborated by an independent expert Mark Basile.
5.) The building fell symmetrically.
The damage to building 7, if done by fire must have been stochastic which would not permit simultaneous global nearly instantaneous failure, and if it is postulated that the damage to the corner of the building initiated the collapse, then the building should have collapsed toward the direction of the damage.
Symmetrical collapse rules out either damage from fire or building debris as an explanation for building collapse.
6.) Buildings 3,4,5, and 6 did not collapse from either debris or fire.
This is despite being closer and taking significantly more damage. With the one exception that the core of building 6 collapsed. It is relevant to note that the center collapsing did not result in global collapse.
7.) When a debate was attempted no respectable scientists was found that would defend the official story about how the WTC fell.
On the side stating that the official story is physically impossible is David Griscom PHD with a Hirsch Index of 52.
Harvard, Yale, MIT, CalTec, Stanford, Colgate, and the American Physical Society were contacted to come and debate him.
No one accepted.
Since pre-meditated controlled demolition is currently the only theory that can explain free fall symmetrical collapse, the conversation by Silverstein, the iron spheres, and the thermitic material, one can safely say, at the very least, that controlled demolition of building 7 is currently the scientific consensus.