The video begins, "Dr. Emote exposed music, words spoken, words typed, pictures and video to Water. After it was crystallized. The Water's Response was truly Majestic." What follows is a three minute slideshow accompanied with soothing music. Words such as "Love", "Happiness", and "Truth" are followed by pictures of snow flakes that have crystallized with few imperfections. Flakes that follow things like "You Make Me Sick. I Will Kill You" are distorted, on a brown background, and don't resemble the classic image of a snow flake. The video ends with the claim, "If Thoughts Can Do That To Water. Imagine What our Thoughts can Do To US - Up to 60% of our body is Water -".
The claim that thoughts, actions, and music can influence the crystallization of water, implying that the nature of water not crystallized is influenced similarly, is quite an extraordinary claim. There is no way to find out the force acting on the water. There is no verification of the experimental process, no control, no wide selection sample, and most certainly no hypothesis generated after observation that is supported after testing. The pictures are supposed to give all the information necessary, but the information given isn't enough. On top of it all, the viewer is not shown multiple photos for each word, phrase, or action. Since we're only given one example, we can't rule out that the experimenter chose those photos that agree with his hypothesis.
In addition, the claims of human mental influence on water does nothing to rule out rival hypotheses. Perhaps the water used in the positive examples was more pure to begin with, or was kept in better conditions than the water used in the negative examples. Again, since we're presented with only one photo from each word, thought, or action, it's likely that the photo chosen to exemplify the word, thought, or action is one where the water was intentionally (or unintentionally) manipulated to give the expected result.
Another experiment used to justify these claims is the rice experiment. Freshly cooked rice is divided among many jars. The jars are then labelled, and the experimenter says what is on the label to the jar every day for thirty days. After thirty days, the rice is examined. Comparing a few videos, the results are mixed (as one would expect on youtube). Videos in support of the concept confirm the results. (e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTz-cYk9Wu4&feature=related) Videos criticizing the experiment reach results that show that the words have little influence, and provide alternative explanations for the results (e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooZBxeKf6yc&feature=related). Since the set up of this experiment is easily replicable, lots of data can be generated.
The videos with strong controls and multiple jars are those that most follow the scientific method, and these videos seem to debunk the claims of the effect thoughts and actions have on water.
This is a perfect example of pseudoscience, thanks to its extraordinary claims, poor experimental procedures, and difficulty to falsify.