A few comments:

5...e6 : I think BxB or even Bg6 is more playable here. Why succumb to doubled pawns for nothing?

I did'nt want to waste moving the same piece again, but overall it failed because I move the pawn twice right after each turn. Why do you think more preferable here?

Personally think Bg6 is better as I hate to initiate trades that help develop his pieces...

8...Bb4. Here's a golden rule about threat making:

if I make a threat and  my opponent can defend against this threat by

    i) Ignoring it and doing something worse to me.

    ii) Forcing me to move my threatening piece again immediately...and possibly improving his position with his defensive move.

    iii) Move the threatened target piece to an even better square, thereby being
much happier with his position.

then your threat useless at best and a MISTAKE at worst.   In this case,  ii) applies and sure enough, he played c3. I'm sure he even liked his pawn better on c3 which can be counted as an improvement.

Remember => When strong players make threats ... they see a benefit to it EVEN with best defense from their opponent...this is one of the great doorways into serious chess.

I'm saving this information for later use, this was very key information for success.

15.... O-O-O : Why castle long instead of short? The general idea about castling opposite sides is that you intend to start a furious race to see who attacks each other's king first. Given that he has far more space on the Queen side, you are essentially "castling towards trouble as opposed to away from it"

Technically that was my idea, that I saw that I could rush my pawns down, but I didn't factor how dangerous it would be for my king against his menacing pawns. Now I know that I should look out for danger before making a castling decision.

More importantly ... let's look at the threat of his f3 break move.  You can't ignore any tactical (forcing move) possibilities on the board AT ANY TIME in a chess game.  If he takes on e4, his central + q-side pawns start rolling. but if YOU take on f3, doesn't that make e3 weak or atleast have his kingside opened up?  Pay attention to the pawn structures after any potential pawn trades!

Do you know of a website or books, that could possibly help me with pawn structures? It seems like, I have no knowledge about this concept at all.

There are 3 famous pawn structure books out there ..The authors are Soltis, Hans Kmoch and another nice one by Alex Baburin. I believe Soltis offers the most gentle-est entry into the subject. Though all of them are good.

16....h5 : too little, too late.   You are dropping a pawn for an attack that will take time to mobilize. His attacking ideas have already begun!

You are right, I rushed into battle without any calculations on tempo.

17...Ng4 : As you said, don't play for cheapos. You have to assume nothing but best moves by your opponent at all times. Also, you have to always calculate forcing moves in response to your move BEFORE you play it.  After giving up a pawn, you can be sure your opponent would love to trade queens and take the sting out of whatever attack/plan you have for him.

 Would this move have been better if I moved my king first to b8 then play my knight to g4?

Good question ... the measure of Ng4 as a worthy threat  is based not because you hope he doesn't see it but if he has to make some concession to defend against it with best play. In this position, I see the dual threat of the Queen hitting h2 as well as Knight hitting e3...but your opponent has the Queen check to cover this threat. Kb8 looks like a good move (at first glance) because it builds up the real threat of Ng4 as well as gets your King  off of a pinnable (in the near future) file with your queen. But even then ... based on his reply where you assume he sees it and defends accurately, you will have a brand new position ahead of you and THEN you have to re-evaluate if Ng4 is still a dangerous threat.  There is no substitute for concrete analysis .. especially when you are down material and are really playing for a tactical shot.

19...Nxe3 : To borrow Josh Waitzkin's analogy ... you drove your car to the teetering edge of the cliff and it's barely balancing mid-way. Don't play a "desperate" second mistake to send it hurtling down!  

Yes, I was impulsive again, and made the mistake. It looks like I should have traded queens then capture.

21...Rd7 : Never trade pieces when you are down.  At this point, I have to say that it is a little weird for you to talk about color weaknesses,quote nimzowich and appear erudite in your reading of advanced chess strategy when you make mistakes that are this fundamental ... this is a sign of a shaky chess foundation that you need to REPAIR FIRST, before you keep reading advanced material. This is no different than a 1st grader quoting ideas from his big brother's advanced algebra textbook but still forgetting to carry the one when he does basic addition. Please take this as constructive criticism ... I've been down this same road before coaches/stronger players set me straight and had me put away + lock up all my advanced chess books until I was ready for them :)

I guess my chess foundation is full of fragments of bits and pieces of information. You are probably right about the shaky chess foundation. This house will fall in on itself someday if this is not repaired. You have been down this road before, do you have any guidance for me in the future? Are there certain books or ideas that I should be working or studying on? How did you fix this? Do you have any recommendations for me specifically?

-Dan Heisman's Novice nook articles (google for them, they are free and quite good! )
-Get your play critiqued by a stronger player / coach regularly.
- Read tons of annotated master games (Logical chess by Chernev, Chess Master vs. Chess Amatuer by Euwe) would be a great starting points.

The rest of the game had you hoping for a mistake and playing for traps ... which is actually okay if you are losing/playing from behind. His technique was quite sloppy and I'm glad you fought till the bitter end.

I'm probably going to change my game up, instead of resigning now, I will start fighting to the bitter end. This way I can analyze my game better and possibly take notes on my mental condition during certain stages. What about his technique was sloppy? What about mine was sloppy besides the useless threats, weakening pawn movements, and mixed concepts?

Might have been his time pressure, but he seemed to dawdle with his rook instead of putting it to good use. I feel the rook needed to be on e5.  Also that back-rank threat was really the only thing you had going for yourself so he should have devoted all his energy to first stopping that and THEN addressing his "it's not going away anytime soon" advantage on the pawn-rolling Queen-side.

Overall : it was  a nice game you played ... treat critical positions (with forcing moves and analysis) with a little bit more care and work on getting the basic ideas (knowing when to trade, looking at forcing moves, making "useful" threats etc.) right and you'll be way more stronger than you are now.

Do you have any plans or regiments that will help me eliminate these goals you have set for me? Overall, could you give me a summary, on how you got where you are today in your chess expertise? This is much appreciated.

I'm statistically just a bit above average from a Federation rating standpoint ... so take this with a pinch of salt :  The last 400-500 rating points was really just me slowing down per move, playing more "real chess" and less "hope chess" , tactics practice and getting yelled at (A LOT) by strong players who were nice enough to critique my games at clubs. Spending some money on a few damn good coaches didn't hurt either. Good luck :)