They all have compact dimensions, so there would be a diverenge from perfect ISL in all of them. And the dilaton appears in all string theories too. I don't for a second think you know about any of them in detail. Besides, the basic list of postulates which gets you in the door and outputs a considerable amount of string theory is well known. I've told you them many times. But as you have done for 2 years (and doubtlessly longer), you just 'forget' that people have corrected you and you continue to tell the same lies. String theory is, as yet, not inconsistent. IIA and IIB are different because one has chirality, the other doesn't. This doesn't mean they are inconsistent, it means (as Witten found) they are different limits of the same model. For instance, Newtonian gravity is the limit of GR when you take low velocities but want to consider gravity. Special relativity is the limit of GR when you ignore gravity but keep high velocities. On the surface SR and Newtonian gravity seem contradictory but when you view them as limits of a larger, more powerful, model, everything falls into place. And I cannot help but notice you couldn't actually show anything I asked. No derivation of results. No precise predictions. No equations of any kind. Instead, you have to desperately clutch at the one point you might be able to get a grip on. So if string theory is flawed for not having a set list of postulates, AWT is killed by having no results, no derivations, no precise predictions and all from a complete lack of postulates. The rest of your post is an attempt to say "String theory is rubbish" in the hopes that rubbishing another theory makes yours valid. That's another one of your usual tactics. Tell me, do you feel you're going anywhere in life? For 2 years now I've seen you post the same crap, the same circular nonsense, managing to avoid learning anything, uncomprehending countless explainations spoonfed to you by knowledgable people and all the while still thinking you've got all the answers. In 4, 6, 10 years from now, if you were still trying to peddle this tosh on a website like this, would you think you'd spent your time wisely? Think of all the physics you could have discussed in the posts you've made, comparing to the nonsense you squandered your time on. Why did you ignore my challenge of a bet? If you are so confident that I'm worried about my survival in physics in the face of AWT, get AWT published in JHEP. If it's so much better than string theory, put your physics where your mouth is. You can't and you know it and that's why you ignored all my salient points.