None of this is true. The argument, if we can call it that, seems to be based on toponyms:
The presence of the Dacians in North America can be certified by the existence of two toponyms derived from the DAC root: North Dakota (North Dakota) and South Dakota (South Dakota). It is well known that the only people bearing this name, in all antiquity and until the late Middle Ages, are the inhabitants of the Carpatho-Danubian-Pontic space, whose country was called Dacia.
This is a coincidence. There are lots of coincidental resemblances between unrelated languages, spoken half a world apart at very different points in history, because the human voice can only make so many sounds. Claiming a connection between two languages needs a lot more than one or two toponyms that have similar sounds.
Also, the Dacian language did not exist 9,000 years ago. It was an Indo-European language, and the Proto-Indo-European language had probably not appeared by then, still less had a chance to evolve into Dacian.
This web-page is pseudo-historical click-bait, somewhat analogous to the historical nonsense known as British-Israelism. When you find web pages that promise great revelations in hidden history, claim that an ethnic group was far more significant in history than is generally accepted, have an excited tone and no references, you can be confident that they're peddling nonsense, mainly in the hope of getting you to click on their advertising links.
Commenters have pointed out that this is an example of Protochronism, a Romanian term for material that ascribes an idealised past and great significance to Romania, and before the Romanians, the Dacians. Or it may be a parody of Protochronism: it's hard to tell without being able to read the original.