I think the idea is this: If you have 9s, in other words 18, and the dealer shows a 7, his most likely hand is 17 so you don't want to mess with a winning hand. If the dealer has an 8 or 9 chances are he has 18 or 19 respectively. Your hand, 18, is only good enough for a push in one scenario and you lose the other, therefore you split. Now you have a 9 and since the two most likely cards are 10s that would give you two 19s. So compared to your 18 which pushes the 8 and loses to the 9 you now beat the 8 and push the 9. This of course is the theory behind why to split or not split 9s and actual results might vary
You might now ask, why not split 9s against a 7 so you can have two winning hands of 19 as opposed to just one winning hand of 18. Likely the reason is, though you might get 2 19s there is also a chance you might end up with two 16s or some other crap like that which would require you to hit and likely bust. In that case you went from 1 winning hand to two losing hands. Remember though when the dealer shows an 8 or 9 you're already losing or just pushing so you're not technically risking a winning hand as in the case with a dealers 7. Not splitting against a 7 is somewhat similar to not splitting 10s. Though you might end up with two winning hands of 20 what if you get two stiff hands and lose to a dealer's 18.
I can understand why someone would question when to split 9s. I did at one point to until I sat down and thought it through.
Hope that clears everything up.