I've been advised that I SHOULD mark such threads as Futurist only, to avoid turning a thread into a Preterist vs Futurist debate, when the intent of the OP is to discuss a prophecy Futurists believe to be in the Future, and hence the "Futurist Only" tag. It wouldn't exist if they were kidding about the rule. I'm just communicating what was conveyed to me, to help you understand the purpose of this tagging system. And its fine if you have other thoughts on the Olivet discourse and are still a Futurist. One thing I've learned after over a year of studying Revelation is that nothing is simple in Eschatology, and a lot of smart people have varying opinions, even within the Futurist only group. For example, Hal Lindsey sees a lot of Revelation as dealing with nuclear war, yet others disagree and believe all the events can be performed by the Lord without the help of nuclear weapons.
I personally do not think it is possible that all events of the Olivet discourse were fulfilled in AD70. It is possible that SOME of what the Lord said referred to AD 70, and other parts refer to his second visible coming when all the world will see the Lord return in great power and glory. And other events could have been fulfilled in AD70 in a small way and then are more completely fulfilled in the future.
Here is a good seminary paper written by a Professor of Theology and Bible scholar:
https://tms.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/tmsj13f.pdf
A sample from this paper:
"Fatal Flaw: Hermeneutical Compromise But once preterists have argued this point, they are in trouble because there are several events in Matthew 24 that clearly have not happened. Thus they are forced to spiritualize those events. All forms of preterism, some more than others, have to rely on figurative interpretation. John Noe, for example, defends non-literal interpretation of prophecy as follows: “The popular stream of endsayers has assumed that the Bible’s apocalyptic language must be interpreted literally and physically, and that since no one has witnessed a cataclysmic, earth-ending event of this nature, its time must lie in the future.”30 The result of the compromise of the heremeneutical integrity thus results in bizarre interpretations such as noted above of 2 Pet 3:10."
The two witnesses and the 200,000,000 person Army that John wrote that he heard (not a large number or myriads of myriads but John gave us a actual number) are examples of such spiritualization in non-Futurist views of Revelation (not the Olivet discourse).