No.
WTC7, like most modern skyscrapers, relied on the walls to brace it against storms. Formed of columns tied with I-beams("wind girders"), these walls formed a shell around the building.
The columns making up these walls in addition carried part of the building weight, along with columns located inside the building.
The collapse started when the northeast part of the building caved in, leaving the walls standing.

Then, the following sequence of events occurred.
The shift in CG caused a southwest bending moment
With the eastern part of the building unrestrained against north-south motion, the building twisted southwards about a western axis
Progressively from east to west, this bent the columns till breaking. This was aided by fire and debris impact damage, from WTC1 and adjacent structure.
You can see the twist manifest itself as a kink in the North wall some time after all columns fail

As will be shown presently, there is little reason to believe that demolition was the cause of this sequence of events.
Why the collapse resembled a controlled demolition
When discussing the similarity of the collapse of WTC7 to a controlled demolition, 3 points are often raised.
Symmetry: The building was asymmetric. The damage was asymmetric. So how does the collapse become symmetric?
Speed: Building 7 fell at freefall for 8 storeys. How is it possible to completely lose support over 8 storeys due to a fire?
Totality: The collapse supposedly started with the failure of just one of 81 columns. So, how does such a failure bring down the whole building?
Here I shall address these features with an explanation of their causes
Symmetry: The building collapsed from the inside out

- As you can see, the penthouses fall first, from left to right. Then the strong facade falls as a sheet. So symmetry is an illusion.
Symmetry: The pre collapse damage pattern
- The collapse of the Twin Towers damaged the southwest side of the building.
NCSTAR 1-9 page 161
With impact and fire damage [NCSTAR 1-9 page 588]
With only fire damage [page 594]
Totality: Loss of lateral restraint from east wall
The caving of the east flooring left the remaining structure to the west without a rigid connection to the east wall. This made the building vulnerable to twisting about the west.
The shift in center of gravity caused by the earlier event caused a southwestward bending moment, promptly setting in motion a southward twisting. This put large bending stresses on the columns.

Speed: The building did not fall as a rigid object
- The interior columns fell first

- And then yanked the facade down

Speed: Multistorey buckling
- The reaction force to the southward sway caused several lower floors to slide northward, completely undermining the building for multiple storeys.

Totality: WTC7 was "weak"
- NIST ran a simulation without any damage other than the removal of the northeastern most interior column. The whole building collapsed.
Why the collapse did NOT resemble a controlled demolition
The noise
I don't know how to stress this enough. Go on Youtube and watch a controlled demolition. Odds are you'll hear:
A series of loud, sharp and sometimes quite annoying BANGs before the building even moves
A (relatively) soft and gentle roar as the building slides down
#1 was completely absent at Building 7. A vivid example of this can be seen in this video
https://youtu.be/JnLcUxV1dPo?t=126
(Ironically, this is the clip that conspiracy theorists plaster around the web)
The time delay for sound from WTC7 to arrive in this video is 2 seconds. But 7 seconds after the east side of the building implodes, we can't hear anything.
It's only after the roofline begins falling that we hear the cameramen shouting "whoa, whoa, whoa!"
The building fell over
From this angle, you can see the building clearly fall over to the south.
https://youtu.be/JnLcUxV1dPo?t=456

Therefore, the claim that the building fell symmetrically straight down onto it's footprint is not accurate
Moreover, look at this picture of the ruins. You can see a wall draped over everything else.

Collateral damage
Borough of Manhattan Community College lost it's Fiterman Hall in the collapse

The Verizon Building was also heavily damaged by the fall of WTC7

Not a very "controlled" demolition.
Other steel framed buildings that fell due to fire
The Plasco in Tehran
On 19 January 2017, the 19 storey Plasco Building pancaked following a several hours long fire.

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth went so far as to claim that this could also be a demolition!
Madrid Windsor Tower
This was a 32 storey building with steel walls and a concrete core

On 12 February 2005, a fire broke out, causing the steel portions, and the steel portions only, on the upper floors, to collapse.

It's possible that the collapse would have been even more destructive but an extra-strong mechanical floor at the middle of the building arrested Twin Towers style pancaking.
Appendix I: The University of Alaska Fairbanks study
Though not directly referenced in the question, this study is one of the strongest arguments used to claim that Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. Therefore, examination of this study is relevant to the question. The study concludes:
The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.
But the study has fatal flaws. Some of the greater examples are touched upon below.
Treating the building like infinitely strong rubber
To see how plausible NIST's progressive collapse model was, UAF ran a simulation with the NIST damage model.
From their figures 4.8 to 4.16, which shows the results of their analysis of the NIST scenario, we learn that they used a linear static analysis. What does this mean?
A linear static analysis is an analysis where a linear relation holds between applied forces and displacements. In practice, this is applicable to structural problems where stresses remain in the linear elastic range of the used material. In a linear static analysis the model’s stiffness matrix is constant, and the solving process is relatively short
Source
That means they neglected plasticity and fracture in a simulation of something being destroyed. The result: Their building was indestructible; they needed to remove columns manually at each step to keep the collapse going, as shown by the captions to their figures.
Ignoring momentum
From the above, we can see that they used a "linear static analysis". The "static" in there is particularly damning.
Linear static analysis has two main assumptions:....
- The loading is static.
- Magnitude and direction do not change with time.
- All loads are applied slowly and gradually until they reach their full magnitudes. Inertial and damping properties are ignored due to negligibly small accelerations and velocities.
- Time variant loads that induce considerable inertial and/or damping forces may warrant dynamic analysis.
Source
By using this static model, they are ignoring all that momentum, which would play a pivotal role in a building collapse.
Here are some ways that ignoring momentum can invalidate their results
Failing to predict the failure of components under sudden load redistribution. For example, the load increase on adjacent connections and columns when column a column fails could be magnified by up to two times due to the momentum of the structure displacing downward.
Failing to predict component failure under impact loads. Momentum of falling debris can increase the force they apply several times.
The result of these errors can be seen in this video. Watch the east penthouse kink, spring back and come to a stop on the top floors of the building.
The above is not exhaustive. But it is enough to see that this "study" has no basis to conclude that "fire did not bring down WTC7".