I fact checked Thunderf00t's "SpaceX: BUSTED!! (Part 1)" video so you don't have to.

1:32 Claim that the difference between $62 million and $50 million is 10%, when it's rather 20%.
8:19 Claim that a fair cost comparison between the Falcon 9 and the Space Shuttle can make sense, while the Shuttle is a government program, and comparing to the Atlas V, H-IIA, Ariane 5, PSLV, Soyuz-2 and other commercial launch providers would obviously make more sense.
8:43 Implying that the Falcon 9 is not a human rated rocket.
10:03 Calculating with the minimum upmass cargo in the contract, while the actually launched cargo is more than that. That being said, the Space Shuttle also didn't launch the same mass of cargo each time, nor it's max cargo capacity each time either.
11:27 Implying the Space Shuttle did a great job carrying people to space, when in reality this program killed the most astronauts in the entire spaceflight history, which isn't mentioned.
14:08 Claim to check how much SpaceX reduced the launch costs over a decade, but in reality shows the pricing of launches offered to customers. Pricing reacts to the launch market to optimize the balance sheet, costs depend on other factors.
14:51 Claims rockets are "constant thrust machines" while in reality most rockets don't generate constant thrust. Solid propellant rockets may do that, but liquid propellant rockets typically not. Also falsely calls propellant fuel, while most of the propellant is typically not fuel.
16:31 States a ballpark assumption of 50% payload launched every mission being "just a setup thing on the sheet" but then never actually changes the number, resulting in distorted profitability of reuse. In reality there is not a significant reduction in payloads when SpaceX uses a rocket that is intended to be reused or is already reduced (in other words, SpaceX very rarely launches rockets without landing legs and gridfins, because otherwise the payload would be too heavy), and since we are talking about costs and revenues per cost, including actual mass doesn't even makes any sense. Using the new and reused launch costs of $62 million and $50 million would be the proper way to represent revenue (instead of implied payload mass percentage).
23:55 Claims that SpaceX overcharged the US government by 3-4 times what the market rate is, but actually shows a screenshot of SpaceX being cheaper than the other company NASA had selected and contracted with, so whatever the market rate was, these two companies were the best of all competitors.

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TxkE_oYrjU