There was no water to fight the fires so a decision was made not to try. I imagine that sometimes creative solutions are found when water is scarce, but this requires devoting resources -- equipment, personel, and time -- to the task. A decision was made not to prioritize this.You seem to be arguing from the point that the fire chief had the option to defeat the fire, but decided not to. But you have not supported this insulting assumption (which you share with the truthers) with any evidence.
This decision, it turned out, resulted in the total loss of the entire building, fortunately, with no loss of life. It's a little unclear to me whether the decision not to try solve the water problem for WTC7 and just let the fires burn, was made on the assumptions that the fires would burn out, or knowing that the building would probably collapse. I would be suprised if the latter were the case. But, like I say, I don't have any official documentation/evidence about the thought process.
I don't think there's anything insulting about this. It's clear from the FEMA and NIST reports that the water issue was the key reason for making the decision not to fight the fires. You can describe this as "they didn't have the option" to fight it. To me, it looks like prioritizing among the many issues they had to deal with that day.