There was a whole study about it.

Firstly, saying "nu uh" and shouting "misinformation" is no way to interact with people. Focusing on typos in particular shows that you have no better arguments.

Secondly, there have been a few studies about cat injuries after falls, with conclusions in both directions. 1987, the study where this idea originated, noticing fewer injuries after 7 stories. 2004, a study finding roughly consistent injuries below 7 stories, but a sharp increase above.

After reading through them, I can think of several confounding factors. Since both studies are of cats brought in to clinics, there are many uncontrolled factors such as the surface the cats tended to land on in the area the studies were conducted, as well as the likelihood of falling on street furniture or shrubs, survivorship bias of different populations not bothering to bring in heavily or lightly injured cats, or the unrecorded cats that died on impact.

Thirdly, I think I insinuated that long falls are not particularly dangerous for house cats, which is somewhat wrong. In both of the linked studies, about 90% of treated cats survived, but nearly all of them sustained at least bodily trauma, if not fractured limbs, vertebrae, teeth, and mandibles.

Lastly, housecats reach terminal velocity after 5 stories, which is the interesting detail I was refering to. My reasoning for why was incorrect, as cats rights themselves in only a few feet of distance. I think there may have been a study about humans falling less than 4 feet being more dangerous that 12 feet due to head injuries or something, but I don't recall. Either way, it resulted in a mangled reference that did not deserve ridicule.