I doubt it - it would be more "proof" that "it" is being covered up.
I also have no doubt that is the prognosis.
But despite that I'm all in favour of a hearing in open court, with the best arguments bought forth.....it might help some people who are unsure.
Whilst I agree with the objective I doubt the practicality. Three reasons will do:
1) Those "people who are unsure" are the ones I call "Genuine Truthers". Those who honestly had doubts about 9/11 matters. Very few of those still visible - certainly few if any on forums. I've only seen one I would classify that way in the last year or so.
2) The "truthers" we see most prominent these days are:
(a) obsessed and so locked in denial that no amount of reason will shift them. OR
(b) dishonest trolls committed to the game of trolling (including a few "Pretending Poes" - "poeing" is a subset of "trolling".)
I doubt whether a court appearance would help "people who are unsure". The situation is analogous IMO to creationism v evolutionary science. I recommend reading the judgement in "Kitzmiller v Dover" - if you have the mindset and patience for treading 139 pages of legal stuff. Convenient access is via section links on Wikipedia -
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District)
A) The reality is that there are not two technical sides. There is nothing to discuss from the CT side. Science one side v pseudo science the other.
B) If it went to court the legal procedural issues would tend to swamp the technical aspects. Partly for the reasons that Oystein has identified - the difficulties of getting technical issues before the court - including the two members "yes buts" which indicate a couple of limited ways it could happen.
Bottom line I suspect is that the legal process would attempt to stop the nonsense at the earliest opportunity. So pre-emption in the legal procedural stages BEFORE discussion even gets close to the technical issues.
See the second claim by April Gallop which "suffered" much the same fate.