Does it? 
Oh, good one. You know I canāt resist. Iām going to have to find a troll emoji now.
Hereās the thing. You canāt do it in a single body because SW and/or Parasolid made the decision to not allow it for the sake of integrity of the data. For every case you can name there is a way to achieve it using multiple bodies.
And the age old argument against it - what do you get if you make zero thickness geometry on a mill or lathe? Scrap.
I say just get over it. There are other battles you might win, this isnāt one of them. Plus, this isnāt even a battle worth fighting. Even if you won (or whoever is making the argument), what would you gain? Somewhere between very little and Zero.
I still get caught by it now and then, and itās never geometry that I intend to make or need to make. Sometimes it takes a while to find, even when I know what Iām looking for. Better diagnostic tools to identify it when it happens or is the cause of an error would be helpful, but if they started allowing zero thickness on parts, I (and a whole lot of other people) would probably start making more junk parts.
Trolling? Iām the troll here! What are you doing stealing my thunder!?!? Get back under that bridge!! 
It keeps coming up on āthe other forumā and I thought Iād give those guys a chance to share their heart. Actually, Iāve got a new argument I want to testā¦ 
Good question 
I will try to explain my opinion best as i can , but please forgive me for my English , because i am āself learnedā so i am having a hard time to write what i mean 
I will take example of hole which is tangent to a edge.
I understand that you cant have zero material between hole and edge of a part , although you can drill (or mill) that hole on that exactly position where you would put dimensions in SW if zero thickness is allowed. Deformation of material would ādestroyā that edge where hole is tangent to edge.
But i will compare this with plate 1 meter long which is 100% flat (and that is what you will never accomplish in real life, you will always have some ādeformationā which will affect flatness )
So i am really having trouble with understanding why zero thickness is not allowed in SW. There is a ton of stuff you can model in SW but you cant make it in real life , so why zero thickness geometry is a different?
Solid models are all about volume, and one of the ways to identify a solid body is as a ācontiguousā or uninterrupted volume. This definition becomes ambiguous when you have a condition with an edge or a point that has no thickness. Thickness is kind of a basic definition of a solid.
In short, it is harder to guarantee valid solid data if you allow zero thickness points and edges.
With your example of the hole tangent to an edge, there is always a tolerance on the hole size and the placement, so use that to make something that the computer can work with.
I donāt agree or disagree with the policy to disallow zero thickness conditions. I merely accept it. Thatās the way it is. They have a reason for it which is reasonable. I keep getting my work done. It would be easier - Iād get fewer errors - if they allowed it, but I want valid geometry more than I want to get rid of a minor inconvenience.
Sorry for the off-topicness, but I wanted to congratulate you on teaching yourself english. Youāre doing prety good!
Thank you
I am better at understanding it than writing or speaking but i am trying my best
Here, tell me what this is:
This is a case where SolidWorks has a switch (verification on rebuild) that allows you to create bad geometry. The inside of the box pokes through the outside of the box. And some people still get surprised when SolidWorks gives them impossible geometry.
Do you want to get this kind of error? No, but some people still throw the switch. They prefer ease of use over quality data.
SolidWorks usually checks every face against every adjacent face to see if you have a self intersecting model. The Verification On Rebuild switch forces SolidWorks to check every face in a model against every other face. This takes way more time, but it helps guarantee a good model. Some people turn it off.
Geez Matt, are your books in Audio versions? Iām not much of a reader but I sure wish I had that sort of knowledge.
Thanks, but sorry, no audio. Itās very long (~1200 pages), youāve got to be really dedicated to read it. Lots of pictures, though. Black and white in print, but color in the ebooks. They never translated them to French either. One year they made a short version in Chinese.
Iām reading sections in it every day. Itās well worth it. I learn something new in every chapter. 
My opinion on ZTGā¦it doesnāt exist except in the mind of AD and PTC fanboys.
Think about it. Can you shine a light beam through a ZTG corner? Yes or no? Either answer proves it is either has a gap or is combined.
The only semi-legit cases for t=0 geometry I can think ofā¦
- sheet metal flanges bent to where corners meet
- spring coils
Others???
A very simple ZTG:
Two pipe/round bars touching.
Two volume share a line or point create ZTG in SW.
In real life, there is no zero thickness zero point.
Sharpest point is one molecule wide.
One day we might get it to one electron, proton, bison but still not zero.
. . . and that can be modeled in SW just fine.
image.png
image.png
I donāt knowā¦if your margins are measured in bisons, you may need to look at adjusting your tolerancesā¦:
image.png
I donāt consider the two-cylinder shape a genuine zero-thickness problem. Itās just two pieces.
This is a classic example of ZTG.
You canāt make it in real life. Change my mind.
Does any CAD software handle this?
You canāt make geometry like so(material will deform so you wonāt have zero material at tangent point) , BUT you can drill hole at exact location which SW does not allow.
You can make ton of things in SW , which you canāt in real life (but SW allows it anyway 
)
Does any CAD software handle this?
Inventor does, i believe.