in his post of 05 March 2015 - 03:15 Pm, I do see the vines (the second texture). This let's me assume that all of the second geometry pixels are drawn.
You have me at a disadvantage. I can't find a post with that timestamp. In any case, "assuming" is certainly your prerogative. I (personally) see no reason to call any image he's posted a "second" texture rendered with a "second" geometry.
E.g., before he posted any image of "results," the OP stated.
I combined the brick with the vines with the tool "DirectX Texture Tool"
As a result, I also see "vines" in some of the images which may, in fact, be the texture he's using, but I still don't have enough information to assume when or how or what image may have been rendered.
He's also changing his rendering code intermittently, changing context culling and blend states (which he doesn't appear to change thereafter), so (for me personally) I can make no assumptions relating an image to the code and data that produced it.
What I do assume is, if results are not as expected, the code is incorrect, the data is incorrect, or both.