Sorry, couldn't resist. Sometimes Freep does get a little rough. This post combines several factors that guarantee a flaming response
1. Thread posted first day signed up
2. Posting of hypothesis that has been thoroughly repudiated multiple times on multiple threads, and in various other media sources within last two days
3. Opens thread with statements that are pretty inflammatory
All in all, I think people have been relatively restrained in their comments. As far as saving Columbia, I haven't seen any options suggested that would have involved less risk than the option tried, particularly when you consider that no one knew how bad the damage was. To save Columbia, you would have to change some parameters from BEFORE the launch. Each of these parameter changes would require other changes in the overall shuttle launch program. A couple of options would have been to include more supplies on shuttle launches allowing a longer sustained orbit (weight issues), tile repair kits (technical issues), slowing down before re-entry (fuel issues), docking ring and fuel for access to space station (fuel, technical and space station won't hold that many people issues), having another shuttle ready to launch for rescue (double cost of each launch).
Space travel is tough and dangerous. If it wasn't every bozo that has a hat would be up there. There are people a lot smarter than me who have dedicated their lives to this program and to understanding space travel. Questions certainly need to be asked, but I don't think you'll find any, "well, just do this and everything will be okay" answers.