It's not probable, depending on the time frame you're referencing maybe not plausible, but it's not impossible. I do better thinking about things in scientific terms. If you have a box that contains 1000 particles of an atom gas, the total kinetic energy in that box is equal to 1000kT. It's possible, though entirely implausible, that if you sampled that system at the right time there would be one particle with energy of 1000 kT and 999 particles sitting still. On the other hand, there is no possibility whatsoever of ever finding a particle with 1001 kT. That energy just isn't available. But given infinite time, at some point the system would sample the configuration with 1000 kT on one particle.
Similarly, the economy can't possibly sustain growth like what we experienced in the '90s because the natural average rate of technological development simply doesn't allow us to increase per-capita production at a rate commensurate with that level of growth. However, if you took the average rate of increase in production allowed by technological development, that is the theoretical maximum to the rate of economic growth that can be sustained. In reality if you want any hope of promoting an economy that grows as consistently as possible there is a strong argument to be made that you are best off trying to restrain growth to some level no higher than ~50% of that maximum theoretical sustainable growth. At least within a Keynesian framework it should theoretically be possible for the government to help check overly rapid economic growth by slowing the influx of money into the system and increasing taxation. This would allow for storage of funds to help deter future economic declines by re-injection into the economy. Of course, it would take a Herculean effort to stave off an economic backslide following an event like the 9/11 attacks. But certainly we would have been in a better position to experience less recession if we weren't coming off a period of unsustainable and largely unchecked growth. I'm not saying it's plausible to have an economy grow ever year for a century. But an ideally-run economy should be able to have only very minor declines, and hopefully grow upwards of 95 or 96 years out of 100. Obviously what we have now isn't all that close to ideal, and I don't really think anyone knows exactly how to idealize it. But to just dismiss it as impossible doesn't exactly encourage the right kind of efforts. We have done any number of things that were once considered impossible, so if they aren't theoretically impossible I wouldn't rule it out.