The point is that they can and do stop much shorter than 15k feet without sustaining damage. That they atypically use more landing space on some rollouts means nothing.
Atypically? They usually use up about 2000 feet of space in their touchdown miss alone. Good luck stopping the shuttle by the end of the runway in the typical case.
Well, atleast that argument makes more sense than "They could never stop in 10,000' without severe damage to the orbiter." I'll take that as an admission of fact-making rather than fact-finding (which is ever so common among RE advocates).
Again, the fact they use more runway as a safety margin
when available means nothing. The same for the 'miss distance'. Let's use STS-2 for an example. They 'missed' by less than 800' and the rollout was 7700'. Do you think they severely damaged the orbiter in that landing? Do you think the landing was perhaps more treated more carefully than an operation decades later? It was after all the
second mission. So if on the second mission ever they were able to land within 800 feet of the aim point and rollout less than 8000 feet without a chute, how can you honestly state "they could never ... "?