SELECT statements may block another SELECT statement. You're probably thinking that since both acquire only S locks, they should never block. But blocking occurs on various types of resources, not only locks. Typical example is memory constraints. I'll try to digg up a recent answer to a question here that had attached a deadlock graph that showed to SELECT statements, one waiting for the other for parallel exchange operator memory resources (buffers).
Updated
Here is the link with deadlock info I talked about: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2945135/i-have-data-about-deadlocks-but-i-cant-understand-why-they-occur
If you study the deadlock graph, you'll notice the following resource in the wait list:
<exchangeEvent id="Pipe894b0680" WaitType="e_waitPipeGetRow" nodeId="0">
<owner-list>
<owner id="process824df048"/>
</owner-list>
<waiter-list>
<waiter id="process86ce0988"/>
</waiter-list>
</exchangeEvent>
This is not a lock, is a 'e_waitPipeGetRow' resource, is owned by a SELECT and another SELECT is waiting for it. Some discussion about 'intra-query parallel resources' can be found here: Today's Annoyingly-Unwieldy Term: "Intra-Query Parallel Thread Deadlocks". While most discussions are going to focus on deadlock issues, that doesn't mean that ordinary blocking cannot occur on these resources. sys.dm_exec_requests
will have the proper info in wait_type
and wait_resource
.