– “You think I’m being flippant…”
No I don’t. I try to discipline myself not to do sarcasm in text comments, because tone of voice is absent. I really do think you asked the critical question.
It isn’t a matter of which specific conspiracy theorist. It’s conspiracy theory itself; it’s a different mode of thought to rationalism.
I see Chandler as of critical importance because he’s the bridge. Without Chandler, you’d have Gage and A&E9/11 on one side, and technical consensus on the other. Onlookers’ only choice would be to pick a side, and the vast majority would pick technical consensus and then move on to something else (putting them closer to the truth but for inadequate reasons). But Chandler’s graphs and papers make it look like a technical disagreement, which it isn’t.
Other examples like Chandler are Professor Patrick Holford and Doctor Andrew Wakefield. I wish you’d read Bad Science, it’d save so much time.