Silvestru discusses the Himalayas around 1:22. To simplify, he points out that there are fish fossils on or near the peak of Everest and also that geologists agree on a 3cm/year erosion rate. He states that the mountain should be 135km deep valley in the mantle by now if erosion had continued for millions of years. He says there is no way the mountain was raised 50 million years ago, it would have eroded to nothing.
I do feel moderately competent to comment here, especially as he provides nothing but assertion for his claims. No evidence of anything is given here and I feel that is because there was no evidence for his claim.
Here is a very short video of how geologists feel the Himalayas were formed. As I was taught in elementary school, they appear to have been formed when the Indian subcontinent impacted Asia. The rocks found on Everest came from North and South, not vertically. This admirably explains the fish fossils as well - they may have come from the North.
Unless Silvestru can defend his claim that the rock rose vertically and not from either side, he has to be considered a liar, and a poor one. This is grade school stuff.