I meant: The story that Solon brought the Atlantis story to Greece.
You know that Thucycides "invented" the speeches of politicians in his work on the Peloponnesian War. But no one would ever say that this war did not happen. No one would ever say that these speeches did never happen, it's only that Thucycides had no tape recorder and so he composed the speeches in a way which looked realistic to him. Is it too far-fetched to ask the question whether Plato did the same with Solon?
Is this a physical reflex always to flee into the statement that nobody ever found something? Look, it is even not clear what to find, as you say yourself, so how can this be an argument, then? - And then you flee back to the literal meaning, like any simple-minded pseudo-scientist. Look, even philologists admit that the story is composed of parts Plato really meant (time frame, catastrophees, etc.) and parts they hold for invented. Could you please be so kind to adjust your opinions to the state of academic research? You know, this does not mean to believe in Atlantis, it does only mean to stop being more dogmatic than necessary, and maybe even ... to start own thinking!
Can you substantiate Plato's claims, as written since the story begins and ends with him? If not, you have no argument other than what you'd like to be true. And as written, yes it's clear what should be found, yet nothing has been.
So philologists 'admit' that Atlantis existed 11,500 BP and that it sank in its entirety into the sea due to earthquakes, etc? And you're arguing that it actually occurred <3000 BC. That's absolutely hilarious.