Is it possible to ask editor-in-chief to change a reviewer?
Certainly you can ask.  It's not impossible that the editor would agree, though it's pretty unlikely. 

What you describe:


  the third one had an aggressive tune and ask some questions that were completely answered in the paper or were basically wrong question.


is normal.  Many reviewers take an aggressive tone. Often they ask questions that were answered in the paper.  The correct response to "an aggressive tone" is to reply in a professional tone, and the correct response to a question that is answered in the paper is to accept that you were not clear enough in the paper, and to improve the explanation.

(Note, by the way, that this one short sentence I quoted has three grammatical/spelling errors. If this represents how the paper was written, it's not surprising that the paper was unclear, and the reviewer's annoyance is perfectly understandable.)

As for the "basically wrong question" ... here's an illustration of how common the "reviewer number three" syndrome is.  

I'm not saying it's good that one out of three reviewers is borderline incompetent. I'm saying that this is part of the territory, this is something every scientist has to deal with, and we don't, can't possibly, all write to the editor and demand they remove Reviewer Number Three.  Instead, what we all do is extract the useful parts of the review, accept that if the reviewer doesn't understand something it's mainly our fault for being unclear and fix that, and work as best we can with the reviewer's concerns.  In your response to the reviewer, you can clearly and professionally explain why the point is mistaken, and explain what you have done to help clarify it.

Editors often (I think; I know it happens sometimes) unofficially deprecate particular reviews, based on their reading.  They are just as good at detecting "aggressive" and outright hostile reviews, and know to put less weight on it. 

But you can ask the editor to remove a reviewer. They're more likely to listen if the reviewer is not just aggressive, but outright hostile; when the reviewer makes an unambiguous statement that isn't just a minority opinion, but is flat wrong, and you can clearly show that; or when the reviewer is just completely out of their depth.  

But the burden is on you to absolutely clearly, professionally, with no trace of hurt feelings or antagonism, show that the reviewer is without doubt incompetent. If you can't do every part of that 100%, don't even bother.  Deal with it the way all the rest of us do.

You may want to look at other answers to questions in the "peer-review" tag to get a sense of the community's feelings:


How common is it to get one very positive and one very negative review?
A frequent reviewer seems to have a grudge against me. What to do?
What to do if reviewers reject a paper without understanding the content?
How to proceed when reviewers reject your manuscript but you believe there is no scientific basis for their objections?


And many more.