To actually answer the question in the thread topic: The original nihilism as an organized movement arose in Czarist Russia, and it was largely a response to the one-track-minded traditionalism that was used to justify basically why nothing should change. You can't have elections, because that's not the Russian way. You can't free the serfs because that's not the Russian way. Etc.
The main thrust of that nihilism was basically "well, all those traditions are worth nothing anyway." Maybe a bit over the top, but they were a major group pushing for modernizing and westernizing Russia, which, frankly, it needed badly.
I'd say that if the question is "ever contributed something", that's your example right there. Yes, it did.
But frankly, the negative attitude towards nihilism is a bit puzzling, seeing it on this board. The term nihilism arose as a pejorative term to be used for the proponents of rationalism or, basically, skeptics. The first use of the term "nihilism" in philosophy was basically as a derogatory label for rationalism.
Everyone who wanted a well argumented and rational reason to do X, as opposed to blindly joining in the group-think, was labeled a nihilist. Essentially what the "nihilists" (as the term was applied by their opponents) were against were arguments boiling down to what nowadays we'd call the "appeal to tradition fallacy" (i.e., basically "it's good because that's the way things are done" or "it's good because it's been always done this way") or "argumentum ad populum fallacy" ("it's good because everyone agrees it's good", usually a rather unsupported version of "everyone agrees") or "appeal to loyalty fallacy" ("only a traitor would say it's not good"), "argument from authority fallacy" (especially when the authority is Jesus), "appeal to law fallacy" (basically "it's good because it's the law"), etc.
Nowadays you take these things for granted, but back then it was quite the novel and shocking concept that you'd want a better rationale than "well, that's how we do thing in these here parts, boy." For most people, who had been raised and lived with some ideas being _the_ way all good men think, and that nobody who's not crazy or a scoundrel ever questions, it was quite a shock that someone would come and say "yes, but is there some objective reason to do X instead of Y and Z? Because just tradition doesn't count." Hence, the pejorative label for those who did.
Remember, nowadays it's at least accepted that you should try to justify a claim. Even those who end up using a fallacy or a dozen, still are at least comfortable with the idea that some justification at all is expected. That was not the case for most of human history. The age of reason and rationalism had to go against a society where some things just were the way things are done, and are good just because they're done that way.
(The political nihilists in Russia that I mentioned, basically just appropriated the term used pejoratively against them.)
Essentially if Randi had lived in the 18'th or 19'th century, he'd almost certainly be labeled a nihilist.
Did those nihilists contribute anything? How about the very world around you being the way it is because of those who got pejoratively labeled "nihilists". Even basic ideas that you take for granted nowadays -- e.g., that law in itself is no justification (hence even in fallacious arguments, "appeal to law" is now all but defunct), or that tradition is no longer some absolute law everyone must obey (again, even in fallacious arguments, "appeal to tradition" is nowadays more subtle than explicitly mentioning tradition) -- were an uphill battle at one point, and someone got labeled a nihilist for them.
Heck, even the economy that made it possible for you to sit there pondering that, instead of being a serf on the fields, came from someone being nihilistic enough to question the traditional roles and pricing rules. Although the term "nihilist" itself wasn't invented yet, so they got called villains instead.
me. Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, at least it's an ethos!