If the NO is the true Church, it’s magisterium, obviously including their popes, have been convincing people that they can be saved outside the Church for decades. What’s the point of it all? As I told an NO priest once; “If your position is correct then I have nothing to worry about, I will be saved, but if I’m correct, you’ve got big problems.” He could not think of anything else to say after that.

Fantastic point.  All Trads are sincere in their beliefs so we're saved in spite of our "non-schismatic-but-really-close-to-it attitude".
It's just another example of liberal logic failure:  Tolerance for all religions except those which have principles.

Why do Novus Ordoites bother trying to convert Catholics to their impious sect.

They're not trying to convert you, they are trying to justify themselves. The Novus Ordo is great for them, they can be in charge and live however they want.

In the event that a priest at a Tridentine Mass runs out of consecrated Hosts while distributing them to the Faithful in Holy Communion, does he restart the Tridentine Mass from the beginning to consecrate additional hosts?  Or does he return to the altar with some unconsecrated hosts and recite the holy words of consecration:  “This is My Body; This is My Blood”?  Answer:  He does not restart the Mass from the beginning, but consecrates additional hosts by reciting the holy words of consecration over them.

On what planet? 

Now, a priest, under extreme circuмstances, COULD just say the words of Consecration and have the Consecration be valid.  So this was Cub's way of clumsily arguing short-form theory, that as long as the essential words remain intact, the Mass is valid.  But, as Pax points out, Cub conflates validity with whether the Mass pleases God.  Secondly, in most vernacular versions of the NOM, they DID touch the essential words of consecration ... so that short-form theory had to become much shorter.  If you say that the form goes past "this is the chalice of My Blood...", then the essential words have been tampered with.

CAN a priest walk into a bakery and, outside of Mass, say the words of Consecration and the place is full of the Holy Eucharist?

CAN a priest walk into a bakery and, outside of Mass, say the words of Consecration and the place is full of the Holy Eucharist?

Theoretically he could.  But in a case so extreme it would be possible to question the sanity (and therefore intention) of the priest who would do such a thing.

... he falsely equates Holy Communion as equal to the Mass itself, instead of distinguishing between the purpose of Mass (ie adoration of God) and the purpose of Communion (the glory of God through our sanctification). This is why 99% of novus ordo/indulters argue that a “valid” consecration is all that matters.

If they are not priests there is no consecration, even if they do a perfect Tridentine mass. The main reason we have doubts about the consecration is that we have doubts whether the new ordination rite creates priests, and also whether the new formula for the consecration of bishops creates a bishop. Without a bishop there are no ordinations PERIOD, and without the proper ordination rite, there are no priests, and without priests there is no consecration of the host. Ad to all of that what you are discussing about the words of consecration, and you have the reason why I do not go to the Novus Ordo, all of the odds are against it being a real mass.

Well, most people use "valid Mass" as a shorthand for "a Mass that included a valid consecration".  How do YOU define valid Mass?

All valid masses have valid consecrations, but not all valid consecrations are done inside a valid mass.

A valid mass MUST have a valid Offertory, Canon, Communion.  The novus ordo has about only 30% of the Offertory and 40% of canon, (and who knows what little % of the communion) compared to the True Mass.  Even the "leftover" prayers in the Offertory and Canon have been changed to delete any words which refer to a 'sacrifice' or 'offering'.  The novus ordo changed the PURPOSE and theology of the mass from the sacrifice of Calvary to the sacrifice of Christ on Holy Thursday.  

(Talk to any novus ordo person and they will say that Christ's sacrifice is His offering of Himself to us in Holy Communion ...NOT his sacrifice on the cross (this is total heresy from V2).  

Or, they will say that the Mass is the re-enactment of Calvary but that the purpose of the mass is Holy Communion (i.e. Eucharistic Supper)...again, this is false).  Very subtle changes in the theology of the novus ordo but very important.  

Ergo, even if the consecration is valid, the Mass is probably invalid and immoral because the PURPOSE of the consecration is altered due to changes/deletions in the prayers.  The prayers and rubrics in the True Mass form the proper intentions and purpose of the mass so it is always valid.  The novus ordo has gutted so many prayers and changed those leftover that what remains does not supply the proper intention for the mass, using the prayers/rubrics themselves.  That's why the novus ordo people do not have a true understanding of the sacrifice of the Mass, because the prayers/liturgy do not teach it clearly.  So, as Cardinal Ottaviani said, the validity of the new mass "can be positively doubted" because the purpose/intention relies SOLELY on the PERSONAL intention of the priest and not the rite itself.

So the new mass has a double doubt - 1) is the priest valid?  2) is the priest's intention valid?

Who knows...