Yes Jesus was talking about His 2nd coming, because the signs He gave in answer to them parallel the Seals of Revelation 6 about the end.
They weren't asking about his second coming. In fact, at the time they didn't think he was going to be crucified. They still thought that he was going to become a great military leader because the prophecies all had that feel to them. They knew he would be bringing judgement on Israel but they thought he would be doing it as a physical King.
At the end of Matthew 23 He was talking to the unbelieving Jews of leaving Jerusalem desolate. In Matthew 24 He was with His disciples upon the Mount of Olives speaking to them, and they then asked what the sign of His coming would be, not only the idea of destruction upon the temple mount.
Which was the result of Titus's siege. They asked about the sign of his coming because they thought he was literally going to lead his own army as King of Israel.
And in the Matthew 24:29-31 and Mark 13:24-27 verses, Jesus was specifically... talking about His 2nd coming and gathering of His Church. You are obviously listening to something else instead of reading those Scriptures in their simplicity.
He tells them that when they see the signs he's given them, they are to leave Jerusalem immediately, to flee to the hills. That makes no sense in the context of his second coming. At all. Paul tells us that those who have died will be resurrected on that day and those that are alive will be taken to meet Jesus in the air. That isn't what Jesus was relating here.
Jesus did say that the angels would gather his people from the four ends of the earth to redeem them from this great destruction. That wasn't the literal entire earth but from the land so they would not suffer the siege. And historically, that's what happened. Church tradition has it that the Jerusalem church left the city and gathered in Pela. Not one was lost.
He said that everything he told them, even the sign of his coming on the clouds, would happen in their lifetimes. There are not two separate events being discussed there.
You could relate almost any two prophecies in the bible by the language used because prophetic language is always in grandiose and hyperbolic terms. But they are not always related. The fact that Matthew 24 and parts of Revelation are similar in language does not necessarily mean that they are talking about the same thing.
In Acts for instance, the phrase "breaking of bread" means two different things in the context. In one place it means a regular meal and in another, just a few sentences away, it means partaking of the Lord's supper.
As for your last statement, I won't bother addressing that little taunt.
Why not? The logical conclusion one must make if they think that Jesus is speaking of some far away generation in the future, is that they must at his second coming flee to the hills above Jerusalem.
