I don't necessarily disagree with that line - but I think that it's an effect rather than a cause - that is, that it's discussing something that may (or may not, depending on how you look at the whole issue) occur through Aiki, but doesn't really describe the process of how to produce that effect.
One of my favorite talks with Sam Chin was about the difference between cause and effect, and how they are not necessarily very similar.
Interesting perspective; I will have to ponder it a bit more.
But at this point I think it's off the mark.
There are a number of things stated in that story that point to something that is a pre-contact, "mental" skill, one of relationship. And really nothing that indicated any concerns for structure, connections in the body, generating power, etc. The way in which he mentions the use of guns and artillery could lead one to believe that the use of the body itself is not even an element of this skill.
Obviously nothing in the story can be said to be a "how to," but more of a "what is."
Minoru Mochizuki wrote:
You fool! What do you mean by such a question? We use kicking techniques or anything else. I even used artillery. Martial arts, guns and artillery are all aikido. What do you think aikido is? Do you think it involves only the twisting of hands? It is a means of war… an act of war! aikido is a fight with real swords. We use the word ‘aiki' because through it we can feel the mind of the enemy who comes to attack and are thus able to respond immediately. Look at Sumo. After the command is given ("Miatte! Miatte!), they stand up and go at each other in a flash. That's the same as aiki. When a person suddenly faces his enemy in an mental state free from all ideas and thoughts and is instantly able to deal with him, we call that aiki. In the old days it was called ‘aiki no jutsu'. Therefore, artillery or anything else becomes aiki.
So maybe Mochizuki knew, maybe he didn't. I don't know!