I saw this statement in your website regarding the beginning of surra AT-TAWBA

?The 'Basmallah' for chapter 9 appears to have been inadvertently dropped at some unknown stage in the copying and distribution of the Scripture. It has therefore been re-inserted into this translation with the full belief that it is indeed 'part of the original' revelation unless proven otherwise?

Also at the same page

?This translation treats all the 'Basmallahs' as a fully revealed verses and thus includes them in the individual as well as total count of verses?

(taken from http//free-minds.org/quran/)

First of all, I do agree with you on the subject that the Basmallahs are fully revealed verses. Here is a picture of a manuscript written in the first century Hijra which clearly shows the beginning of surra al-zukhruf and how the Basmallah was treated as a separate verse

http//www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/yem1a.html

Also, based on the oldest manuscripts that we inherent (one in Tashkent and the other one in Istanbul), there is no Basmallah at the beginning of Surra 9.
By admitting that Basmallahs are the part of revelation to our prophet (pbuh), you basically add a verse to Quran. This action from the people whose beliefs are based on a protected and fully preserved Quran is not admissible. If that is true, why not assuming that other verses have been missed during copying the scripture? (Nauzubellah)
Please remove that extra verse from the beginning of Surra 9.