different considered subprocesses in a typical example. We have chosen the ${\alpha}_k$ parameters that mimic the $MSM$ with a heavy scalar Higgs whose mass is $m_H=1 TeV$ . The rates for the contributions of the different subprocesses to the total $Z^0Z^0$ final state, $q\bar{q}$, $gg$, $Z^0Z^0$ and $W^+W^-$ are, respectively: $45$, $17$, $3$, $35\%$ and to the total $W^{\pm}Z^0$ the rates are $61$, $22$, $17\%$ coming from $q\bar{q'}$, $W^{\pm}Z^0$ and $W^{\pm} \gamma$ fusion.

As it has been discussed above, the essential point in our calculations is that we have not used the $ET$ [@ET; @ETCL] to obtain the scattering amplitudes of the gauge bosons as it is customary. We have calculated the corresponding tree level amplitudes for the gauge bosons and projected them into their transversal or longitudinal components. Therefore we do not have the limitations that appear when the $ET$ and the chiral lagrangian formulation of the $ESB$ are used together [@ET]. The chiral lagrangian approach provides a low-energy description of the $GB$ dynamics as an expansion on the momenta over $4 \pi v$ and the $ET$ refers to the large energy relation between $GB$ and the longitudinally polarized gauge bosons $S$ matrix elements. In our case we only 