This is not possible.  The INSERT statement takes a single destination object as per the syntax (BOL reference):

[ WITH &lt;common_table_expression&gt; [ ,...n ] ]
INSERT 
{
        [ TOP ( expression ) [ PERCENT ] ] 
        [ INTO ] 
        { &lt;object&gt; | rowset_function_limited 
          [ WITH ( &lt;Table_Hint_Limited&gt; [ ...n ] ) ]
        }
    {
        [ ( column_list ) ] 
        [ &lt;OUTPUT Clause&gt; ]
        { VALUES ( { DEFAULT | NULL | expression } [ ,...n ] ) [ ,...n     ] 
        | derived_table 
        | execute_statement
        | &lt;dml_table_source&gt;
        | DEFAULT VALUES 
        }
    }
}
[;]


Take note of the &lt;object&gt; placeholder on the 6th line of the syntax snippet.

Is there a particular reason why you want to insert into two tables in one statement?  Perhaps you are looking for both inserts to either succeed or fail as one?  In that case, you would be looking at explicit transactions:

begin tran;
    insert into dbo.YourTable1 ...
    insert into dbo.YourTable2 ...
commit tran;


Besides code brevity and atomicity, I wouldn't see any other reason that you'd want to combine multiple destination tables into a single INSERT statement.

Adding Data to Multiple Tables Using Single Query
I recently got two papers rejected with the reviewers asserting a lack of technical contribution. They contained good ideas, at least in my eyes, and used common methodologies in the experimentation. So my question related to the CS field is, what is the difference between a good idea that was tested and a technical contribution? What should an idea have to become a technical contribution?

Another observation I had is that other papers, that got accepted, were actually worse from the research methodologies and were previously published in similar form (so the idea was not very original) at that conference, so the “contribution” of these papers is much lower than mine would have been (again it’s just from my perspective). So I don’t understand why those papers got accepted and if the reviewer’s decisions actually make sense, what is it that makes such papers accepted? I aim at enhancing my now rejected papers because I still think they contain original ideas that should be published, I just don’t know where to start.
