A typical building fire will have temperatures in excess of 500 degrees and can get as high as 1800 degrees. You are telling me that Building Seven did not meet the required design capabilities to meet the approval of the building code of New York City and that it was allowed to be constructed in a manner that would not survive a typical skyscraper-type fire. I say this is total bullshit.
Your findings do not agree with the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Structural Engineering Institute, who both stated that building 7 collapsed due to the uncontrolled fires caused by failure in the sprinkler system. The fire plus the damage it took from the debris from the other two towers caused a load bearing failure. The collapse of the first tower was like an explosion of massive force, and a lot of that force was directed in the direction of building 7. Since the shear force on any building is directly proportional to its lateral surface area in the direction of the force applied, the shear force must have greatly exceeded any thing that the building was designed to handle. Building 7 was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Based on its investigation, NIST reiterated several recommendations it had made in its earlier report on the collapse of the Twin Towers, and urged immediate action on a further recommendation: that fire resistance should be evaluated under the assumption that sprinklers are unavailable; and that the effects of thermal expansion on floor support systems be considered. Current building codes were drawn to prevent loss of life rather than building collapse. I was not the least surprised that those buildings were destroyed on 9/11.