Here's Shyam Sunder of NIST:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?280569-1/investigation-world-trade-center-building-7 3 minutes in.
I feel like you're battling some cognitive dissonance here... But I get what you're arguing. You're grasping onto that there must be some key difference in the fires that WTC 7 experienced compared to fires in other buildings, because otherwise, why did it collapse and those other buildings didn't? Now, NIST's take on it is, very explicitly, that there was no massive difference, only that the fires happened to cause a very rare, "extraordinary event" as they put it in the FAQ. And you're arguing the difference was that the fires were set in a very unique way, that being debris impact from a building collapsing nearby. But think about it... Once the fires are ignited, what's the difference? It's just office furnishings burning. All the fire proofing in WTC 7 was still intact, and we know steel frames hold up in those sorts of temperatures just fine from examples like One Meridian.
The NIST FAQ answer to question 15 highlights the unique elements in WTC7 leading to the collapse that didn't exist in other historical cases of similar fires:
Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.
If these circumstances were identical or fundamentally similar in earlier cases of similar fires, then you can claim the fire as a whole had historical precedents and yet in those precedents they didn't cause a collapse.