No one is denying that Jesus' Second Coming is tied to prophecy. What non-dispensationalists deny is that futurist dispensationalism has found the correct interpretation of those prophecies. E.g., that Matthew 24 is related to the events of AD70 is admitted even by many dispensationalists who cannot, regardless of how hard they try, twist the plain words to mean something else.
Those who claim a system based on consistent literalism and then have to weasel their way out of many tough passages (such as the blood sacrifices for atonement of Ezekiel 40-48) are really the ones doing a disservice to the plain words of Scripture
A little hard following your logic. Linkage of AD 70 to MT 24-25 is a stretch for nearly all dispensationalist, who hold a higher regard for early writing of the scriptures - e.g. the synoptics being written before AD 70. Many who advocate a post AD 70 authorship date do so because they discount prophecy a priori. Since there cannot be a supernatural knowledge of the future, any "prophecy" written must be fulfilled by that event - no matter if the facts of the event are something completely different than described by the prophecy. Thus their paradox - they must also deny OT prophecy in a similar manner and by doing so, must rationalize away the clear prophecies regarding Jesus.
Thus for the 'correct' interpretation to come about, other predispositions must come into play. Some pretribs have incorrectly, IMHO, linked MT 24-25 to the rapture by failing to observe the whole context of the passage. However, the passage cannot find fulfillment in AD 70's destruction of Israel.