Was that supposed to clarify anything?WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse....
First of all, NIST's model doesn't behave like the building that we can all see in the videos. Even if we took the computer cartoons to represent only the (soft?) interior of the building (the part that we can't see directly, conveniently, and so can only theorize about), there are many points in the visualizations where the interior structure has twisted beyond the visible envelope, the allegedly rigid "outer shell" of the building, as you put it. A competent, honest investigator might call that a violation of boundary conditions that renders the computer model invalid. There are many other reason to reject the computer modeling as invalid (for example, the fact that active fires in the model don't coincide with reality, or that the model's structural specifications don't coincide with reality...).
And you have failed to address the fact that the visible exterior itself should be providing structural resistance to upper perimeter and roof-line. Nevertheless, we see the roof-line suddenly and symmetrically dropping at free-fall acceleration. How is that possible, unless something caused the simultaneous failure of all perimeter columns (and any lingering interior attachemnts) in a building with a very large footprint?